Inherent Powers of The State

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
KA-POLI NOTES
because it is WHOLESOME. WHOLESOME.
NOXIOUS or
INTENDED FOR
A NOXIOUS
PURPOSE
What are the inherent powers of the State?

➔ Police Power
➔ Eminent Domain
➔ Taxation Power
What is the just compensation in police power, eminent

domain, power of taxation?
Just compensation is "the full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from its owner by the expropriator. (Check
Manila Memorial case)
Inherent powers are limitations of the Bill of Rights. Why?

This reviewer is made out of love and fear for the law. Please According to Fernando, it is "rooted in the conception that
do not hesitate to share this material because sharing is caring men in organizing the state and imposing upon its
and karma always has its ways. #NoToCrabs government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did
not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group
of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
salutary measures calculated to ensure communal peace,
safety, good order, and welfare. The Bill of Rights itself does
What are the similarities among the 3 inherent powers of the
not purport to be an absolute guarantee of individual rights
State?
and liberties. (PASEI v. Drilon)
➔ It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain
reason that it does not owe its origin to the Charter.
POLICE POWER
➔ They are methods by which state interferes with property
rights
What is the definition of “Police Power”?
➔ It is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty.
➔ As per the case of PASEI vs. Drilon - The State’s authority
It is a fundamental attribute of government that has
to enact legislation that may interfere with personal
enabled it to perform the most vital functions of
liberty or property in order to promote the general
governance.
welfare.
➔ they are all indispensable
➔ As per the case of QC vs. Ericta - As defined by Freund, it
➔ They are legislative in character.
is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property.
What are the differences?
EMINENT POWER OF What are the different components of Police Power?

POLICE POWER
DOMAIN TAXATION (1) Public welfare - An imposition of restraint upon liberty
or property; and
REGULATES affect only affect only (2) In order to foster the common good.
both LIBERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY
and PROPERTY RIGHTS. RIGHTS. Why is police power not expressly conferred in the
Constitution?
be EXERCISED be EXERCISED For the simple reason that it does not owe its origin to the
EXERCISED BY
ONLY ONLY Charter as it is inborn or inherent in the very fact of Statehood.
SOME PRIVATE
BY THE BY THE
ENTITIES.
GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT What are the two legal principles that justify police power?
➔ Salus populi suprema lex - welfare of the people is the
The property The property The property supreme law
taken in the taken is intended taken is intended ➔ Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - so as to use your
exercise for a PUBLIC USE for a PUBLIC USE property so as not to impair/injure another
of Police Power OR PURPOSE is OR PURPOSE is
is DESTROYED therefore therefore
POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
What are the four characteristics of Police Power? Also, it is incorrect to say that Department Order No. 1
(1) Most positive and active of all government processes prescribes a total ban on overseas deployment. From
(2) Most essential scattered provisions of the Order, it is evident that such a total
(3) Insistent ban has not been contemplated.
(4) Illimitable
On the violation of the right to travel, the consequence of the
Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon deployment ban does not impair the said right. The right to
G.R. No. 81958. June 30, 1988 travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of
"public safety," "as may be provided by law." Department
Facts: Order No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in
particular, its basic policy to "afford protection to labor,”
➔ Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI),
pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's rule-
a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino
making authority vested in it by the Labor Code.
workers, male and female, for overseas placement,"
➔ PSAEI challenges the Constitutional validity of
Neither is there merit in the contention that Department
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the
Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative
Department of Labor and Employment.
power. It is true that police power is the domain of the
➔ PSAEI alleges the following:
legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may
(a) the measure is assailed for "discrimination
against males or females;" not be lawfully delegated.
(b) that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but
only to domestic helpers and females with similar Doctrine: The police power of the State is a power
skills; coextensive with self-protection, and it is not inaptly termed
(c) that it is violative of the right to travel; the 'law of overwhelming necessity. It is not capable of an
(d) that it is aninvalid exercise of the lawmaking
exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general
power, police power being legislative, and not
executive, in character. terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace.
➔ PSAEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the
Constitution, providing for worker participation "in How did this case define the concept of police power?
policy and decision-making processes affecting their It is the State’s authority to enact legislation that may interfere
rights and benefits as may be provided by law. with personal liberty or property in order to promote the
➔ Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in general welfare.
the absence of prior consultations.
Why isn’t there an exact definition?
➔ On May 25, 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the
It is purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its all-
respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the
comprehensive embrace. Also, because its scope is ever-
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, filed a
expanding as to meet the exigencies of the times, even to
Comment informing the Court that on March 8, 1988, the
anticipate the future where it could be done. It also provides
respondent Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in
enough room for an efficient and flexible response to
the states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong,
conditions and circumstances; thus, assuring the greatest
United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland.
benefits.
Issue: W/N Department Order No. 1 is valid under the
What is the limitation of police power?
Constitution.
➔ It may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Held: Yes. The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason ➔ It also constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of
why the contested measure should be nullified. There is no Rights
question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female
contract workers,” but it does not thereby make an undue Why is there such a limitation?
discrimination between the sexes. Because if it is exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably, it defeats
the purpose for which it is exercised, that is, to advance the
Furthermore, the words used, that it does not apply to "all public good.
Filipina workers' ' is not an argument for unconstitutionality.
Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would What is the public interest in this case?
have been unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, The constitutionality of the enhanced protection for Filipino
not all of them are similarly circumstanced. What the female overseas workers as discriminatory and
Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or unconstitutional.
group of persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of
such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to Does the Sec. of Labor have police power?
another person or group of persons Yes. It is in his exercise of his delegated power.

What are the classifications of “equality before the law” under violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution
the Constitution? because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction
(1) Such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; between alien and citizen in the exercise of the
(2) They are germane to the purposes of the law; occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause,
(3) They are not confined to existing conditions; and because the law is prospective in operation and
(4) They apply equally to all members of the same class. recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the
occupation and reasonably protects their privilege; that
Note: In this case, the court is satisfied that the classification the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its
made — the preference for female workers — rests on objectives appear to us to be plainly evident — as a
substantial distinctions. matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually
necessary — and that in any case such matter falls within
Inchong vs. Hernandez the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and
G.R. No. L-7995. May 3, 1957 discretion the Judicial department of the Government
may not interfere;
Facts:
b. No. It cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict
➔ Republic Act No. 1180 entitled "An Act to Regulate the
with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually
Retail Business." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade
been entered into on the subject and the police power
business.
may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any
➔ Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of RA 1180,
other conventional agreement.
contending that:
(1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection of
the laws and deprives them of their liberty and Doctrine: Police power is far-reaching in scope, and it is
property without due process of law; almost impossible to limit its sweep. It derives its existence
from the very existence of the State itself, and does not need
(2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or
to be expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to be co-
comprehended in the title thereof;
extensive with self - protection and survival, and as such it is
(3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations
the most positive and active of all governmental processes,
of the Republic of the Philippines;
the most essential, insistent and illimitable|.
(4) the provisions of the Act against the transmission
by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary
succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino Is the conduct of a lawful business subject to police power?
capitalization for a corporation or entity to entitle it Yes.
to engage in the retail business, violate the spirit of
Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article Is it necessary? The retail trade?
XIV of the Constitution. Yes. The Government has the responsibility to ensure that
➔ The Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila lawful citizens are the ones who hold these lawful businesses.
contend that:
(1) the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police What is the interest involved in retail trade nationalization
power of the State, which exercise is authorized in law?
the Constitution in the interest of national Public Interest - Interest of national economic survival
economic survival;
(2) the Act has only one subject embraced in the title; What are the limitations of police power?
(3) no treaty or international obligations are infringed; due process clause and equal protection clause
(4) As regards hereditary succession, only the form is "SECTION 1.(1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
affected but the value of the property is not property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
impaired, and the institution of inheritance is only denied the equal protection of the laws."
of statutory origin.
What are the two tests?
Issue: (1) Lawful subject - The interest of the public generally, as
(1) W/N the Retail Trade Act is was approved in the valid distinguished from those of a particular class, requires
exercise of police power the interference of the state.
(2) W/N the Retail Trade act is in conflict with treaties which (2) Lawful means - There must be a rational connection
are generally accepted principles of international law. between the object of the law and the means employed.
It must not be unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Held:
a. Yes. The enactment of the Retail Trade Act clearly falls
within the scope of the police power of the State, thru
which and by which it protects its own personality and
insures its security and future; that the law does not

Lutz vs. Araneta The Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds
G.R. No. L-7859. December 22, 1955 what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its
promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed
Facts: full play, subject only to the test of reasonableness. If
objectives and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no
➔ The Sugar Adjustment Act (Commonwealth Act No.
reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds
567) was Promulgated in 1940. The law in question
for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made
opens with a declaration of emergency, due to the
to implement. Taxation may be made on the implementation
threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of
of the state's police power.
export taxes upon sugar as provided in the Tydings-
McDuffie Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential
That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers
position in the United States market"; wherefore, the
themselves can hardly be a ground of complaint; indeed, it
national policy was expressed "to obtain a readjustment
appears rational that the tax be obtained precisely from those
of the benefits derived from the sugar industry by the
who are to be benefited from the expenditure of the funds
component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the
derived from it. At any rate, it is inherent in the power to tax
sugar industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality of
that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation.
the loss of its preferential position in the United States
market and the imposition of the export taxes."
➔ In section 2, it provides for an increase of the existing Doctrine: If objectives and methods are alike constitutionally
tax on the manufacture of sugar, on a graduated basis, valid, no reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes to
on each picul of sugar manufactures; while section 3 raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may
levies a tax imposition on owners or persons in control be made the implement. Taxation may be made the
of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugarcane and implement of the state's police power
ceded to others for a consideration, on lease or
otherwise. What is the power used (inherent power) in this case?
➔ Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Police power
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme
Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal Is the principle of taxation applicable in this case?
Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as No. Taxation is only used as an implement of Police Power.
taxes, under section 3 of the Act; alleging that such tax
is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid Can police power be used as an implement of taxation?
and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in Yes.
plaintiff's opinion is not a public purpose for which a
tax may be constitutionally levied. Can one use the other as a supplement/complement?
Yes.
Issue: W/N the Sugar Adjustment Act is Unconstitutional
Can we say that the public interest involved here is the
Held: No. It is a valid exercise of Police Power, through integrity of banking and commercial transactions?
Taxation. Yes. The unregulated issuance is like dumping garbage to the
national economy.
The basic defect in the plaintiff's position is his assumption
that the tax provided for in Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a The Power of Taxation may be used as an implement of Police
pure exercise of the taxing power. Analysis of the Act will show Power when?
that the tax is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide When the tax is levied for a regulatory purpose, to provide
means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened
threatened sugar industry. In other words, the act is primarily sugar industry.
an exercise of the police power.
Power of Eminent Domain as complement of Police Power?
This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that sugar Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but
production in one of the great industries of our nation, sugar a mingling of the police power and the power of eminent
occupying a leading position among its export products; that domain, with the latter being used as an implement of the
it gives employment to thousands of laborers in fields and former like the power of taxation
factories; that it is a great source of the state's wealth, is one
of the important sources of foreign exchange. Its promotion,
protection and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to
the general welfare. Hence it was competent for the
legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the
sugar industry should be stabilized in turn.

Association of Small Landowners vs. Doctrine: The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of
Secretary of Agrarian Reform the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the
G.R. No. 89572. December 21, 1989 title to and the physical possession of the said excess and all
beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-
Facts: beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police
➔ In relation to the Constitutional mandate of Agrarian power but of the power of eminent domain.
Reform, R.A. No. 6657 (CARP) was enacted, which
provided for retention limits on any public or private How was the complementing of police power and eminent
agricultural land. Section 6 thereof provides: domain used in this case?
◆ Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but
provided in this Act, no person may own or a mingling of the police power and the power of eminent
retain, directly or indirectly, any public or domain, with the latter being used as an implement of the
private agricultural land, the size of which shall former like the power of taxation.
vary according to factors governing a viable
family-sized farm… but in no case shall The mandated confiscation of all covered lands held beyond
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) private retention limits is compensable as it partakes the
hectares… nature of expropriation. and yet, this king of expropriation is
➔ The petitioners are arguing that there being taking, the intended for the benefit not only a particular community or of
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino
taken for public use without just compensation applied. nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished
farmer to the land-guttered owner. It is for this reason that
Issue: W/N there was compensable taking the exercise of eminent domain becomes an implement of
police power.
Held: Yes. There are traditional distinctions between the
police power and the power of eminent domain that logically Lazano vs. Martinez
preclude the application of both powers at the same time on G.R. No L-63419, December 18, 1986
the same subject. Property condemned under the police
Facts
power is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose, such as
a building on the verge of collapse, which should be ➔ The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP
demolished for the public safety, or obscene materials, which 22 for short), popularly known as the Bouncing Check
should be destroyed in the interest of public morals. The Law, which was approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole
confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike the issue presented by these petitions for decision.
taking of property under the power of expropriation, which ➔ These petitions arose from cases involving
requires the payment of just compensation to the owner. prosecution of offenses under the statute. The
defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash
Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but the information on the ground that the acts charged
a mingling of the police power and the power of eminent did not constitute an offense, the statute being
domain, with the latter being used as an implement of the unconstitutional.
former like the power of taxation.
➔ In view of the importance of the issue involved here,
there is no doubt in our mind that the instant petitions
The cases before us present no knotty complication insofar as
should be entertained and the constitutional
the question of compensable taking is concerned. To the
challenge to BP 22 resolved promptly, one way or the
extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe
other, in order to put to rest the doubts and
retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the
uncertainty that exist in legal and judicial circles and
police power for the regulation of private property in
the general public which have unnecessarily caused a
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
delay in the disposition of cases involving the
regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of
enforcement of the statute.
whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area
allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of Issue: W/O BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and
eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation imprisonment for debt.
of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the
Held: Yes, the enactment of B.P. 22 is a declaration by the
title to and the physical possession of the said excess and all
legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and
beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-
issuance of a worthless check is deemed a public nuisance
beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police
to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. The
power but of the power of eminent domain.
effect of the issuance of worthless checks transcends the
private interests of the parties directly involved in the

transaction and touches the interests of the community at banned by the Central Bank, it averaged between 50
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the million to 80 million pesos a day.
payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. ➔ The effects of the issuance of a worthless check
transcends the private interests of the parties directly
In sum, we find the enactment of B.P. 22 a valid exercise of
involved in the transaction and touches the interests
the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional
of the community at large. The mischief it creates is
inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an
injury to the public
Firstly, the gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is
the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check ➔ Among the constitutional objections raised against BP
that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is 22, the most serious is the alleged conflict between
not the non-payment of an obligation which the law the statute and the constitutional provision forbidding
punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a imprisonment for debt. It is contended that the statute
debtor to pay his debt. runs counter to the inhibition in the Bill of Rights
which states, "No person shall be imprisoned for debt
Secondly, the thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of or non-payment of a poll tax." Petitioners insist that,
penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and since the offense under BP 22 is consummated only
putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious upon the dishonor or non-payment of the check when
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by it is presented to the drawee bank, the statute is really
the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against a "bad debt law" rather than a "bad check law." What
property, but an offense against public order. it punishes is the non-payment of the check, not the
act of issuing it. The statute, it is claimed, is nothing
more than a veiled device to coerce payment of a debt
Lastly, it may be constitutionally impermissible for the under the threat of penal sanction.
legislature to penalize a person for non-payment of a debt
ex contractu. But certainly, it is within the prerogative of the Doctrine: The police power of the state has been described as
lawmaking body to prescribe certain acts deemed "the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers" which
pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
are not the only acts which the law can punish. An act may and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating from or
not be considered by society as inherently wrong, hence, conferred by the constitution but inherent in the state.
not malum in se, but because of the harm that it inflicts on
the community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished What are the two tests for a valid exercise of police power?
as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise (1) Lawful Subject
of its police power. (2) Lawful Means
The police power of the state has been described as "the

How do we apply these tests?
most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers" which
(1) For Lawful Subject: the subject of the measure is within
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
the scope of the police power, i.e. that the activity or
and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating from or
property sought to be regulated affects the public
conferred by the constitution but inherent in the state,
welfare. The interest of the public, generally, as
plenary, suitably vague and far from precisely defined,
compared to a particular c;ass requires interference by
rooted in the conception that man in organizing the state
the State.
and imposing upon the government limitations to
(2) For Lawful Means: The means employed are reasonably
safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and
enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct
not unduly oppressive upon individuals. Both the end
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to
and means must be legitimate.
ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare."
THE RATIONALE FOR ADOPTION OF BP 22 Is the freedom of movement in cases of OFWs a subject of
police power?
➔ The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the Yes.
legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the
making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed May commercial documents be subject to police power?
a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of Yes, valid. They are considered as a substitute for money.
penal sanctions.
➔ The adoption of the statute, it is not difficult to
understand the public concern which prompted its
enactment. It had been reported that the approximate
value of bouncing checks per day was close to 200
million pesos, and thereafter when overdrafts were

DepEd vs San Diego The method employed by the challenged regulation is not
G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989) irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive.
Facts:
The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical
➔ The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is
schools and ultimately the medical profession from the
whether a person who has thrice failed the National
intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it
again.
In Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, this Court upheld the
➔ The private respondent is a graduate of the University
constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to
of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in
limit the admission to medical schools only to those who
Zoology.
have initially proved their competence and preparation for
➔ The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three a medical education. In the case at the bar, the respondent
times and flunked it as many times. judge agreed with the petitioner that the said case was not
➔ When he applied to take it again, the petitioner applicable. Her reason was that it upheld only the
rejected his application on the basis of the rule that requirement for the admission test and said nothing about
(h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances the so-called "three-flunk rule." We see no reason why the
to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at
student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the bar. The issue raised in both cases is the academic
fourth time. preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least
➔ The private respondent insists he can, on initially by the admission test and, indeed with more
constitutional grounds reliability, by the three-flunk rule. The latter cannot be
➔ He then went to RTC to compel his admission to the regarded any less valid than the former in the regulation of
test in his original petition for mandamus. the medical profession.
➔ He first invoked his constitutional rights to academic
freedom and quality education. By agreement of the While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he
parties, the private respondent was allowed to take does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor.
the NMAT scheduled subject to the outcome of his
petition. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a
➔ In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, the Court upheld the menace to his patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer may
constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended prove better as a plumber, he should be so advised and
to limit the admission to medical schools only to those advised. Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber,
who have initially proved their competence and but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the
preparation for a medical education. bar. By the same token, a student who has demonstrated
promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a
Issue: W/O police power of the State be redefined? course in nursing, however appropriate this career may be
for others
Held: No, there is no need to redefine here the police power
of the State.
The right to quality education invoked by the private
Suffice it to repeat that the power is validly exercised if: respondent is not absolute. The Constitution also provides
that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished
course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable
from those of a particular class, require the
admission and academic requirements."
interference of the State, and
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the
The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule
attainment of the object sought to be accomplished
and give way to those better prepared. Where even those
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
who have qualified may still not be accommodated in our
1. In other words, the proper exercise of the police
already crowded medical schools, there is all the more
power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject
reason to bar those who, like him, have been tested and
and a lawful method.
found wanting.
The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within
the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the There would be unequal protection if some applicants who
responsibility of the State to ensure that the medical have passed the tests are admitted and others who have
profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom also qualified are denied entrance. In other words, what the
patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. equal protection requires is equality among equals.
The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the

right to quality education as a guarantee of the

Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it ➔ Executive Order No. 626-A - Imposes an absolute ban
because of his preparation and promise. The private not on the slaughter of the carabaos, but on their
respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his movement.
persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly ➔ Restituto Ynot transported 6 carabaos in a pump boat
misplaced, like a hopeless love. from Masbate to Iloilo.
➔ The carabaos were confiscated by the police station
It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to commander for violation of EO 626.
regulate and enrich our system of education by directing
➔ Ynot sued for recovery and issued a writ of replevin with
the student to the course for which he is best suited as
the RTC of Iloilo, wherein he questioned the
determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we
constitutionality of the said executive order.
may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of Justice
➔ The RTC of Iloilo sustained the confiscation and declined
Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but
to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order.
because we are a nation of misfits.
Doctrine: Police power is validly exercised if: (1) The interests YNOT’S PETITION
of the public require the interference of the State; and (2) The Ynot claimed that EO 626 and EO 626-A were invalid because
means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment it was imposed without the right to be heard before a
of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
oppressive upon individuals. He complained that the measure should not have been
presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional. Further, he
How about choosing an academic profession? Can we say that challenged the improper exercise of legislative power by
students have absolute independence as to what they want to Marcos.
pursue?
Yes. Issue: W/N EO 626 and EO 626-A an invalid exercise of police
power?
What is the interest involved in the entry of the medical
profession? Held: Yes. Under the law, the protection of the general welfare
Public Health. is the particular function of police power, which both
restraints and is restrained by due process.
Is the 3-flunk rule intended for the patients or the students?
It is intended for the safety of the patients, but for the police power is now invoked by the government to justify EO
maintenance of ensuring competence for future medical 626 and EO 626-A, which prohibits the slaughter of carabaos,
students, and subsequently, doctors. This 3-flunk rule is except under certain conditions. This Court affirms at the
needed to ensure that they are capable of handling the lives outset the need for such a measure. However, the reasonable
of their future patients when the time comes. The three-flunk connection between the means employed and the purpose
rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing.
the medical profession from the intrusion of those not Even if a reasonable relation between the means and the end
qualified to be doctors. were to be assumed, the sanction that the measure applies for
violation of the prohibition. The penalty is outright
Is there an underlying message when the SC compared a confiscation of the carabao or the carabeef being transported,
lawyer to a plumber? to be meted out by the executive authorities, usually the
He may not be compelled to be a plumber, but he cannot also police.
force himself to the bar. The nature of their work is the same
in such a way that they both declog. Lawyers unclog the In this case, the carabaos arbitrarily confiscated by the police
courts; plumbers unclog other things. station commander were only returned upon the filing of the
complaint and the bond. The executive order defined the
Can we say that as long as one of the acts passed one of these prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately
tests, it is already a valid governmental act? imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The
No, the two requisites for valid exercise of Police Power such measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner
as Lawful Subject and Lawful Means should be complied with. without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him
the centuries-old guarantee of elementary fair play. There are
only rare occasions when notice and hearing may be validly
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
dispensed with, however, there is a justification for the
G.R. No. 74457. March 20, 1987
omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the
immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the
Facts:
urgency of the need to correct it. However, there was no such
➔ Executive Order No. 626 - Prohibits the interprovincial pressure of time or action calling for the petitioner’s
movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos peremptory treatment. The properties involved were not even
not complying with the requirements of EO 626. inimical per se as to require their instant destruction. There

certainly was no reason why the offense prohibited should not Doctrine: Police power may not be practiced to enforce
have been proved first in a court of justice, with the accused oppressive and arbitrary actions towards alleged offenders.
being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under the Police powers may be used together with due process as to
Constitution. render proper judgment.
The phrase “may see fit”, which was stated in the assailed EO, What did Themistocles tell Alcibiades, that is connected to
is extremely generous and dangerous. It is laden with perilous this case?
opportunities for partiality and abuse, even corruption. It is an “Strike, but hear me first.”
invalid delegation of legislative powers, thus, arbitrary.
Do lower courts have jurisdiction over cases which question
The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police the constitutionality of executive orders?
power because the method employed to conserve the Yes. It was held that while lower courts should observe a
carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions,
law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same
because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the whenever warranted, subject only to review by the highest
right to be heard in his defense and is immediately tribunal.
condemned and punished. The conferment on the
administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of What did Justice Laurel say about constitutionality?
the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial While it was true that laws are presumed to be constitutional,
functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact
powers. There is also an invalid delegation of legislative may be rebutted. If there is a clear showing of their invalidity,
powers to the officers mentioned who are granted unlimited and of the need to declare them so, then “will be the time to
discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily make the hammer fall, and heavily.”
taken. Thus, overall, the assailed EOs are unconstitutional.
What is the particular function of police power?
COMPARISON AS TO THE DIFFERENCE IN RESOLUTIONS The protection of the general welfare.
Pesigan vs.
Ynot vs. IAC US vs. Toribio How did this case define police power?
Angeles
Police power is the power inherent in the State to regulate
It was held that It was held that liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare.
EO 626-A was EO 626-A was By reason of its function, it extends to all the great public
unconstitutional penal in nature, needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least
for being an the violation limitable, and the most demanding of the three inherent
invalid exercise thereof should powers of the State. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a
of police power have been The Statute was ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long
as it is not only pronounced not sustained as the activity or the property has some relevance to the
oppressive, but by the police but because the public welfare, its regulation under the police power is not
arbitrary. by a court of penalty only proper but necessary.
justice, which prescribed was
The conferment would have had fine and What Latin maxim justifies police power, and what does such
on the the authority to imprisonment, to Latin maxim mean?
administrative impose the be imposed by ➔ Salus populi est suprema lex - “Let the good of the
authorities of the prescribed the Court after people be the supreme law.”
power to penalty, and only trial and ➔ Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - “One must use his
adjudge the guilt after trial and conviction of the property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another.”
of the supposed conviction of the accused. Both calls for the subordination of individual interests to the
offender is a accused. benefit of the great number.
clear There was due
encroachment Showed that a process What are the two ways to justify the omission of the right to
on judicial policeman could accorded. hearing?
functions and not be higher ➔ The immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected.
militates against than the laws of ➔ The urgency of the need to correct it.
the doctrine of the country or
separation of any judicial How did the Supreme Court construe the phrase “may see fit”?
powers. court. The Court held that the phrase “may see fit” is an extremely
generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden
with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even

corruption. In short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid death, to be determined by competent City
delegation of legislative powers. Authorities.
➔ For several years, the aforequoted section of the
How was due process violated in this case? Ordinance was not enforced by city authorities but seven
In this case, the carabaos arbitrarily confiscated by the police years after the enactment of the ordinance, the Quezon
station commander were only returned upon the filing of the City Council passed the following resolution:
complaint and the bond. The executive order defined the ◆ “To request, as it does hereby request the City
prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further
imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The selling and/or transaction of memorial park
measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner lots in Quezon City where the owners thereof
without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him have failed to donate the required 6% space
the centuries-old guarantee of elementary fair play. intended for pauper’s burial.”
➔ The QC Engineer notified Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in
Why was the due process clause kept intentionally vague? writing, that the assailed section would be enforced.
The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it ➔ Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing with the CFI a
would remain also conveniently resilient. This was felt petition for declaratory relief, prohibition, and
necessary because due process is not, like some provisions of mandamus with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul
the fundamental law, an “iron rule”. Flexibility must be the
the questioned ordinance.
best virtue of the guarantee. The very elasticity of the due
process clause was meant to make it adapt easily to every PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the The taking of the respondent’s property is a valid and
changing times and circumstances may require. reasonable exercise of police power and that the land is taken
for a public use as it is intended for the burial ground of
What did Justice Felix Frankfurter say about Due Process? paupers. They further argued that the Quezon City Council is
“Nothing more and nothing less than the embodiment of the authorized under its charter, in the exercise of local police
sporting idea of fair play.” power to make such further ordinances and resolutions not
repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and
How was Due Process stated in the famous Dartmouth discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act and
College case? such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the
“Every person, faced by the awesome power of the State, is health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the
entitled to the law of the land. As the law which hears before morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the
it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of
judgment only after trial. It has to be so if the rights of every property therein.
person are to be secured beyond the reach of officials who,
out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would degrade the RESPONDENT’S REPLY
due process clause into a worn and empty catchword. The taking or confiscation of property was obvious because
the questioned ordinance permanently restricts the use of the
What are the minimum requirements of Due Process? property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable
➔ Notice purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his
➔ Hearing property.
Generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they
are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. Issue: W/N Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, series of 1964 is
a valid exercise of police power.
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta
G.R. No. L-34915. June 24, 1983 Held: No. An examination of the Charter of QC does not reveal
any provision that would justify the ordinance in question,
Facts: except the provision granting police power to the City. Section
➔ Section 9, Ordinance No. 6118, S-1964 - Ordinance 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to QC to tax,
regulating the establishment, maintenance, and fix the license fee, and regulate such other business, trades,
operation of private memorial type cemetery or burial and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City.
ground within the jurisdiction of quezon city and
providing violations thereof. Police power is defined by Freund as ‘the power of promoting
◆ Section 9. At least six (6) percent of the total the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
area of the memorial park cemetery shall be liberty and property’. It is usually exerted in order to merely
set aside for charity burial of deceased persons regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If
who are paupers and have been residents of he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for
Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their public use but rather to destroy in order to promote general
10

welfare. In police power, the owner does not recover from the insure the development of communities with salubrious and
government for injury sustained in consequence thereof. wholesome environments. The beneficiaries of the regulation,
in turn, are made to pay by the subdivision developer when
The SC held that police power is so far-reaching in scope that individual lots are sold to home-owners.
it has almost become impossible to limit its sweep. As it
derives its existence from the very existence of the state itself, Doctrine: The power to regulate does not include either the
it does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope. Being power to prohibit or the power to confiscate.
co-extensive with self-preservation and survival itself, it is the
most positive and active of all governmental processes, the How did Freund define the concept of police power?
most essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially so under “The power of promoting the public welfare by restraining
the modern democratic framework, where the demands of and regulating the use of liberty and property.”
society and nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable
proportions. The field and scope of police power have Is there a valid exercise of police power?
become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest None.
and public welfare have become almost all embracing and
have transcended human foresight. Since the Courts cannot Does it involve regulation or taking?
foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare, In this case, there was taking.
they cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the
police power by which and through which the State seeks to
Manila Memorial Park vs. Secretary of DSWD
attain or achieve public interest and welfare.
G.R. No. 175356. December 3, 2013
The police power being the most active power of the

Facts:
government and the due process clause being the broadest
limitation on governmental power, the conflict between this ➔ On April 23, 1992, RA 7432 was passed into law granting
power of government and the due process clause of the the following privileges to senior citizens:
Constitution is oftentimes inevitable. a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all
establishments relative to utilization of
However, in the case at hand, there is no reasonable relation transportation services, hotels and similar lodging
between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total establishment[s], restaurants and recreation centers
area of an private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of and purchase of medicine anywhere in the country:
deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good Provided, that private establishments may claim the
order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The cost as tax credit;
ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a b) a minimum of twenty percent (20%) discount on
certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who admission fees charged by theaters, cinema houses
are in charge of the municipal corporation. Instead of building and concert halls, circuses, carnivals and other
or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city similar places of culture, leisure, and amusement;
passes the burden to private cemeteries. The expropriation c) exemption from the payment of individual income
without compensation of a portion of private cemeteries is taxes: Provided, That their annual taxable income
not covered by the Revised Charter of Quezon City which does not exceed the property level as determined
empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of the dead by the National Economic and Development
within the center of population of the city and to provide for Authority (NEDA) for that year;
their burial in a proper place subject to the provisions of d) exemption from training fees for socioeconomic
general law regulating burial grounds and cemeteries. programs undertaken by the OSCA as part of its
work;
When the Local Government Code, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 e) free medical and dental services in government
provides that a Sangguniang panlungsod may “provide for establishment[s] anywhere in the country, subject
the burial of the dead in such place and in such manner as to guidelines to be issued by the Department of
prescribed by law or ordinance” it simply authorizes the city Health, the Government Service Insurance System
to provide its own city owned land or to buy or expropriate and the Social Security System;
private properties to construct public cemeteries. This has f) to the extent practicable and feasible, the
been the law and practise in the past. It continues to the continuance of the same benefits and privileges
present. Expropriation, however, requires payment of just given by the Government Service Insurance System
compensation. The questioned ordinance is different from (GSIS), Social Security System (SSS) and PAG-IBIG,
laws and regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set as the case may be, as are enjoyed by those in
aside certain areas for streets, parks, playgrounds, and other actual service.
public facilities from the land they sell to buyers of subdivision
lots. The necessities of public safety, health, and convenience ➔ On August 23, 1993, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 02-
are very clear from said requirements which are intended to 94 was issued to implement RA 7432.
11

➔ A Petition for Prohibition was filed by petitioners Manila be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
Memorial Park, Inc. and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc. substantial, full and ample
against public respondents Secretaries of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) The 20% discount is intended to improve the welfare of senior
and the Department of Finance (DOF). citizens who, at their age, are less likely to be gainfully
➔ Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4 of employed,
Republic Act (RA) No. 7432, as amended by RA 9257, and
the implementing rules and regulations issued by the The 20% discount is a regulation affecting the ability of private
DSWD and DOF insofar as these allow business establishments to price their products and services relative to
establishments to claim the 20% discount given to senior a special class of individuals, senior citizens, for which the
citizens as a tax deduction Constitution affords preferential concern. In turn, this affects
➔ Petitioners emphasize that they are not questioning the the amount of pro􏰄ts or income/gross sales that a private
20% discount granted to senior citizens but are only establishment can derive from senior citizens. In other words,
assailing the constitutionality of the tax deduction the subject regulation affects the pricing, and, hence, the
scheme prescribed under RA 9257 and the implementing profitability of a private establishment. However, it does not
rules and regulations issued by the DSWD and the DOF. purport to appropriate or burden speci􏰄c properties, used in
➔ Petitioners posit that the tax deduction scheme the operation or conduct of the business of private
contravenes Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution, establishments, for the use or benefit of the public, or senior
which provides that: private property shall not be taken citizens for that matter, but merely regulates the pricing of
for public use without just compensation goods and services relative to, and the amount of pro􏰄ts or
➔ Respondents assert that there is no justiciable income/gross sales that such private establishments may
controversy as petitioners failed to prove that the tax derive from, senior citizens.
deduction treatment is not a "fair and full equivalent of
the loss sustained" by them. POLICE POWER v. EMINENT DOMAIN
➔ They also assert that as to the constitutionality of RA
9257 and its implementing rules and regulations, POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN
respondents contend that petitioners failed to overturn
its presumption of constitutionality. More important, It is the inherent power of
respondents maintain that the tax deduction scheme is the State to regulate or to
a legitimate exercise of the State's police power. restrain the use of liberty
and property for public It is the inherent power of
welfare. The only limitation the State to take or
Issue: W/N RA 9257 as an exercise of the power of eminent
is that the restriction appropriate private
domain is unconstitutional as it requires payment of just imposed should be property for public use.
compensation. reasonable, not oppressive.
The Constitution, however,
Held: NO. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power To be a valid exercise of requires that private
which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general police power: property shall not be taken
welfare for its object. 1) it must have a lawful without due process of law
subject or objective and and the payment of just
2) a lawful method of compensation. Property
Police power as an attribute to promote the common good accomplishing the goal interests are appropriated
would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of and applied to some public
petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, "Property rights of purpose which necessitates
the questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the individuals may be the payment of just
absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory subjected to restraints and compensation therefor. The
burdens in order to fulfill title to and possession of
effect of the provision in question, there is no basis for its
the objectives of the the property are
nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every
government. transferred to the
law has in its favor. expropriating authority.
A property right is
A tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement of the impaired by regulation, or However, it is a settled rule
senior citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the the use of property is that the acquisition of title
definition of just compensation. The exercise of Police power merely prohibited, or total destruction of the
regulated or restricted to property is not essential for
does not require payment of just compensation
promote public welfare. "taking" under the power
Hence, there is no of eminent domain to be
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of compensable taking, present.
the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The hence, payment of just
measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word compensation is not
just is used to intensify the meaning of the word required. In the exercise of
compensation, and to convey the idea that the equivalent to
12

police power (as placed on the property for

distinguished from the use or benefit of the
eminent domain), although public.
the regulation affects the
right of ownership, none of
the bundle of rights which
constitute ownership is
appropriated for use by or COMMISSIONER OF
for the benefit of the public MANILA MEMORIAL PARK INTERNAL REVENUE v.
v. SECRETARY OF DSWD CENTRAL LUZON DRUG
CORPORATION
Examples: Example:
1. Regulations where the Acquisition of lands for the
property condemned construction of public The orbiter in this case
for being noxious or highways as well as describes the 20% discount
intended for noxious agricultural lands acquired as an exercise of the power
purposes by the government under of eminent domain and the
(1) (e.g., a building on the the agrarian reform law for tax credit, under the
verge of collapse to be redistribution to quali􏰄ed previous law, equivalent to
demolished for public farmer beneficiaries. the amount of discount
safety, or obscene given as the just
The 20% discount is a
materials to be destroyed compensation.
regulation affecting the
in the interest of public ability of private
morals) The reason is that:
establishments to price
2. zoning ordinances (1) The discount would
their products and services
prohibiting the use of have formed part of
relative to a special class of
property for purposes the gross sales of the
individuals, senior citizens,
injurious to the establishment were it
for which the Constitution
health, morals or not for the law
affords preferential
safety of the prescribing the 20%
concern.
community discount, and
(2) (e.g., dividing a city's (2) The permanent
territory into residential reduction in total
and industrial areas) revenues is a forced
subsidy
corresponding to the
However,it is a settled rule
taking of private
that the acquisition of title
property for public
or total destruction of the
use or benefit.
property is not essential for
"taking" under the power
of eminent domain to be
Doctrine: The 20% discount is a valid exercise of police power.
present.
It is intended to improve the welfare of senior citizens who, at
their age, are less likely to be gainfully employed, more prone
to illnesses and other disabilities, and, thus, in need of subsidy
Example: Establishment of in purchasing basic commodities.
easements, such as where
the land owner is In this case, senior citizen discounts were treated as tax credit,
perpetually deprived of his and it was amended to a deductible expense prior to tax,
proprietary rights because
meaning they can only recover up to 32%, and the remaining
of the hazards posed by
electric transmission lines is to be borne by the owners. Is there a taking or is there a
constructed above his regulation?
property or the compelled There is a regulation. The 20% discount is a regulatory
interconnection of the measure which impacts the pricing and, hence, the
telephone system between profitability of business establishments.
the government and a
private company.
Supposing the value is 100 and is sold to senior citizens, the
establishment will only receive 80 pesos. Is there a taking as
In these cases, although
the private property owner to the 20%?
is not divested of No. because 32% of the 20% discount will be reimbursed to
ownership or possession, the drugstores.
payment of just
compensation is warranted Is the 20% already part of the profit of the establishment?
because of the burden No, it is an expectation. Thus, it is not considered as profit.
13

Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters The corporate powers of the local government unit confer the
Association basic authority to enact legislation that may interfere with
G.R. Nos. 189185 & 189305. August 16, 2016 personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations
in order to promote the general welfare. Such legislative
Facts: powers spring from the delegation thereof by Congress
through either the Local Government Code or a special law.
➔ Ordinance NO. 0309-07 -An Ordinance Banning Aerial
The General Welfare Clause in Section 16 of the Local
Spraying as an Agricultural Practice in all Agricultural
Government Code embodies the legislative grant that enables
Activities by all Agricultural Entities in Davao City.
the local government unit to effectively accomplish and carry
➔ City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte approved the ordinance on
out the declared objects of its creation, and to promote and
February 9, 2007.
maintain local autonomy.
➔ The ordinance took effect on March 23, 2007 after its
publication in the newspaper Mindanao Pioneer.
Substantive due process requires that a valid ordinance must
➔ The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association,
have a sufficient justification for the Government's action. This
Inc. (PBGEA) and two of its members, namely: Davao
means that in exercising police power the local government
Fruits Corporation and Lapanday Agricultural and
unit must not arbitrarily, whimsically or despotically enact the
Development Corporation (PBGEA, et al.), filed their
ordinance regardless of its salutary purpose. So long as the
petition in the RTC to challenge the constitutionality of
ordinance realistically serves a legitimate public purpose, and
the ordinance, and to seek the issuance of provisional it employs means that are reasonably necessary to achieve
reliefs through a temporary restraining order (TRO) that purpose without unduly oppressing the individuals
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. regulated, the ordinance must survive a due process
➔ They alleged that the ordinance exemplified the challenge.
unreasonable exercise of police power; violated the
equal protection clause; amounted to the confiscation of
Doctrine: A valid ordinance must not only be enacted within
property without due process of law; and lacked
the corporate powers of the local government and passed
publication pursuant to Section 511 of Republic Act No.
according to the procedure prescribed by law. In order to
7160
declare it as a valid piece of local legislation, it must also
➔ The RTC opined that the City of Davao had validly
comply with the following substantive requirements, namely:
exercised police power under the General Welfare Clause
(1.) It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
of the Local Government Code; that the ordinance, being
(2.) It must be fair, not oppressive;
based on a valid classification, was consistent with the
(3.) It must not be partial or discriminatory;
Equal Protection Clause.
(4.) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
➔ PBGEA, et al. appealed, and applied for injunctive relief (5.) It must be general and consistent with public policy; and
from the CA, which granted the application and (6.) It must not be unreasonable.
consequently issued a TRO to meanwhile enjoin the
effectivity of the ordinance. In the State's exercise of police power, the property rights of
➔ The CA promulgated its assailed decision reversing the individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in
judgment of the RTC. order to fulfill the objectives of the Government. A local
government unit is considered to have properly exercised its
SECTION 5. BAN OF AERIAL SPRAYING. — A ban on aerial police powers only if it satisfies the following requisites, to wit:
spraying shall be strictly enforced in the territorial jurisdiction (1.) The interests of the public generally, as distinguished
of Davao City three (3) months after the effectiveness of this from those of a particular class, require the interference
Ordinance. of the State; and
(2.) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
Issue: W/N the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and
that Section 5 of Ordinance No. 0309-07 is oppressive and an not unduly oppressive.
unreasonable exercise of delegated police power.
What are the requirements for a valid exercise of police power
Held: No. Ordinance No. 0309-07 is a valid act of the in the LGU level?
Sangguniang Bayan of Davao City pursuant to its delegated To be considered as a valid police power measure, an
authority to exercise police power in the furtherance of public ordinance must pass a two-pronged test:
welfare and in ensuring a sound and balanced environment
for its constituents. (1) Formal – Whether the ordinance is enacted within the
corporate powers of the local government unit, and
The court ascertains whether the City of Davao acted within whether it is passed in accordance with the procedure
the limits of its corporate powers in enacting Ordinance No. prescribed by law; and
0309-07. (2) Substantive – Involving inherent merit, like the
conformity of the ordinance with the limitations under
14

the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the What is rational basis scrutiny? (also known as the rational
requirements of fairness and reason, and its consistency relation test or rational basis test)
with public policy. This demands that the classification reasonably relate to the
legislative purpose. The rational basis test often applies in
cases involving economics or social welfare, or to any other
Is the exercise of one inherent power to the exclusion of the case not involving a suspect class.
others?
No. See the case of Baguio vs. NAWASA To determine the propriety of the classification, courts resort
to three levels of scrutiny, viz.: the
What are the two branches of delegated powers? (a) rational scrutiny;
(b) intermediate scrutiny; and
(1) General legislative power
(c) strict scrutiny.
● Refers to the power delegated by Congress to the local
legislative body, or the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the Under the rational basis test, we shall:
case of Davao City, to enable the local legislative body (1) discern the reasonable relationship between the means
to enact ordinances and make regulations. and the purpose of the ordinance; and
● This power is limited in that the enacted ordinances must (2) examine whether the means or the prohibition against
aerial spraying is based on a substantial or reasonable
not be repugnant to law, and the power must be
distinction.
exercised to effectuate and discharge the powers and A reasonable classification includes all persons or things
duties legally conferred to the local legislative body; and similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law.
(2) Police power proper
Authorizes the local government unit to enact ordinances The established classification under Ordinance No. 0309-07 is
necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, to be viewed in relation to the group of individuals similarly
morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the situated with respect to the avowed purpose. This gives rise
local government unit and its constituents, and for the to two classes, namely: (1) the classification under Ordinance
protection of their property No. 0309-07 (legislative classification); and (2) the
classification based on purpose (elimination of the mischief).
What are the 6 standards under the substantive requirement The legislative classification found in Section 4 of the
for a valid piece of local legislation? ordinance refers to "all agricultural entities" within Davao City.
(1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; Meanwhile, the classification based on the purpose of the
(2) it must be fair, not oppressive; ordinance cannot be easily discerned because the ordinance
(3) it must not be partial or discriminatory; does not make any express or implied reference to it. We have
(4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade; to search the voluminous records of this case to divine the
(5) it must be general and consistent with public policy; and animus behind the action of the Sangguniang Panglungsod in
(6) it must not be unreasonable. prohibiting aerial spraying as an agricultural activity.
What are the requisites for a local government unit to be Note: A restriction on use of property may also constitute a
considered to have properly exercised its police powers? "taking" if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a
(1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished substantial public purpose or if it has an unduly harsh impact
from those of a particular class, require the interference on the distinct investment-backed expectations of the owner.
of the State; (Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution)
and
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
(2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and
What is eminent domain?
not unduly oppressive. (Due Process Clause of the
It is the right, authority or power of the State as sovereign, or
Constitution)
of those to whom the power has been lawfully delegated to
take private property for public use upon observance of due
What is the means-end test?
process of law and paying for the owner a just compensation
The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the
to be ascertained according to law.
justification given by the Government for its conduct is
gauged by using the means-end test.
It is an inherent power of the state that enables it to forcibly
acquire private property, which is intended for public use,
This test requires analysis of:
upon the payment of just compensation. It is based on
(1) the interests of the public that generally require its
political necessity; it is inseparable from the state unless it is
exercise, as distinguished from those of a particular class;
denied to it by its fundamental law.
and
(2) the means employed that are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.
15

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila
G.R. No. 134355. October 31, 1919 It has been contended — and many cases are cited in support
of that contention — that the necessity for taking property
Facts: under the right of eminent domain is not a judicial question.
However, practically every case cited in support of this
➔ On the 11th day of December 1916, the city of Manila
doctrine has shown that in each case the legislature directly
presented a petition in the Court of First Instance,
determined the necessity for the exercise of the right of
praying that certain lands be expropriated for the
eminent domain in the particular case. It is not denied that if
purpose of constructing a public improvement, namely,
the necessity for the exercise of the right of eminent domain
the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila.
is presented to the legislative department of the government
➔ The defendant, the Comunidad de Chinos de Manila
and that department decides that there exists a necessity for
[Chinese Community of Manila], alleged that it was a
the exercise of the right in a particular case, then in that case,
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
the courts will not go behind the action of the legislature and
of the laws of the Philippine Islands, it was the owner of
make inquiry concerning the necessity.
two parcels land described in paragraph 2 of the
complaint; that the lands in question had been used by
But when the statute does not designate the property to be
the defendant for cemetery purposes; that a great
taken nor how much may be taken, then the necessity of
number of Chinese were buried in said cemetery; that it
taking particular property is a question for the courts.
denied that it was either necessary or expedient that the
said parcels be expropriated for street purposes; that
The Charter of the city of Manila authorizes the taking of
existing street and roads furnished ample means of
private property for public use.
communication for the public in the district covered by
such proposed expropriation; that if the construction of
The cemetery in question seems to have been established
the street or road should be considered a public
under governmental authority. The Spanish Governor-
necessity, other routes were available, which would fully
General, in an order creating the same, used the following
satisfy the plaintiff's purposes, at much less expense and
language: "The cemetery for indigent Chinese having been
without disturbing the resting places of the dead; that
founded and maintained by the spontaneous and fraternal
the plaintiff was without right or authority to expropriate
contribution, in consideration of their services to the
said cemetery.
Government of the Islands its internal administration,
government and regime must necessarily be adjusted to the
Issue: W/N in expropriation proceedings by the city of Manila,
taste and traditional practices of those born and educated in
the courts may inquire into, and hear proof upon, the
China in order that the sentiments which animated the
necessity of the expropriation?
founders may be perpetually effectuated."
Held: YES. The city of Manila is given authority to expropriate

It is alleged, and not denied, that the cemetery in question
private lands for public purposes. The Charter of the city of
may be used by the general community of Chinese, which fact,
Manila provides that "the city (Manila) . . . may condemn
in the general acceptance of the definition of a public
private property for public use."
cemetery, would make the cemetery in question public
property. If that is true, then, of course, the petition of the
The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a
plaintiff must be denied, for the reason that the city of Manila
municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right
has no authority or right under the law to expropriate public
some law must exist conferring the power upon it. When the
property.
courts come to determine the question, they must not only
find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the
Further, even granting that a necessity exists for the opening
right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or
of the street in question, the record contains no proof of the
authority is being exercised in accordance with the law.
necessity of opening the same through the cemetery. The
record shows that adjoining and adjacent lands have been
In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon
offered to the city free of charge, which will answer every
the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First, the land
purpose of the plaintiff.
must be private; and, second, the purpose must be public.
Whether the purpose for the exercise of the right of eminent Doctrine: A municipal corporation in this jurisdiction cannot
domain is public, is a question of fact. Whether the land is expropriate public property. The land to be expropriated must
public or private is also a question of fact; and, in our opinion, be private, and the purpose must be public.
when the legislature conferred upon the courts of the
Philippine Islands the right to ascertain upon trial whether the
right exists for the exercise of eminent domain, it intended
that the courts should inquire into, and hear proof upon, those
questions.
16

STREET, J., dissenting: What are the issues needed to be resolved in expropriation
I concur with Justice Moir in the view that the authorities of proceedings?
the City of Manila are the proper judges of the propriety of (1.) Whether the land is private; and
the condemnation and that this Court should have nothing to (2.) Whether its subsequent purpose is public.
do with the questions of the necessity of the taking.
What about those properties devoted for public use?
MOIR, J., dissenting:
Can public properties be expropriated?
Clearly having the right of expropriation, the city of Manila
No, public properties may not be expropriated.
selected the line of its street and asked the court by proper
order to place the plaintiff in possession of the land described
What can be expropriated?
in the complaint. Instead of doing so, the court entered upon
Private properties which will therefore have a public use.
the question of the right of the city to take the property and
the necessity for the taking.
Republic vs. PLDT
It is a right of the city government to determine whether or G.R. No. L-18841. January 27, 1969
not it will construct streets and where, and the courts sole duty
was to see that the value of the property was paid the owners Facts:
after proper legal proceedings ascertaining the value. ➔ The plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, is a political
entity exercising governmental powers through its
The law gives the city the right to take private property for branches and instrumentalities, one of which is the
public use. It is assumed it is unnecessary to argue that a Bureau of Telecommunications.
public road is a public use. ➔ Sometime in 1933, the defendant, PLDT, and the RCA
Communications, Inc., entered into an agreement
What is the rule if there is a doubt on the part of the authority whereby telephone messages, coming from the United
when exercising the eminent domain? States and received by RCA's domestic station, could
The court may make an inquiry, hear proof upon an issue automatically be transferred to the lines of PLDT; and
properly represented, and question whether or not such vice-versa, for calls collected by the PLDT for
property will be used for some public use. transmission from the Philippines to the United States.
The arrangement was later extended to radio-telephone
What is the constitutional source of eminent domain? messages to and from European and Asiatic countries.
There is none. The power of, or the source of eminent domain ➔ Soon after its creation in 1947, the Bureau of
originates from necessity. Telecommunications set up its own Government
Telephone System by utilizing its own appropriation and
What principle anchors the power to eminent domain? equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT to
The principle of necessity. enable government offices to call private parties. Its
application for the use of these trunk lines was in the
Are these justiciable or political questions? usual form of applications for telephone service,
It depends. If it is exercised by the Congress, it is a political containing a statement, above the signature of the
question. However, if it is exercised through a general applicant, that the latter will abide by the rules and
delegated power it becomes a justiciable question. regulations of the PLDT which are on file with the Public
Service Commission. Through these trunk lines, a
When do we say that delegation is specific or general in this Government Telephone System (GTS) subscriber could
case? make a call to a PLDT subscriber in the same way that the
A specific delegation is when there is a transfer of a specific latter could make a call to the former.
authority by one of the three branches of the government to ➔ PLDT complained to the Bureau of Telecommunications
another branch or an independent agency. While, a general that said bureau was violating the conditions under
delegation is when a certain power is turned over to another which their Private Branch Exchange (PBX) is
authority in full or in part. interconnected with the PLDT's facilities, referring to the
rented trunk lines, for the Bureau had used the trunk
If delegation is specific, is it a political question? lines not only for the use of government offices but even
Yes. Courts have no power to control the legislative authority to serve private persons or the general public, in
in the exercise of their right to determine when it is necessary violation of their application for use of trunk lines and in
or expedient to condemn a specific piece of property for competition with the business of the PLDT; and gave
public purposes. notice that if said violations were not stopped, the PLDT
would sever the telephone connections. When the PLDT
received no reply, it disconnected the trunk lines. The
result was the isolation of the Philippines, on telephone
17

services, from the rest of the world, except the United would be the users of both telephone systems, so that the
States. condemnation would be for public use.
➔ The Bureau of Telecommunications had proposed to the
PLDT that both enter into an interconnecting agreement, Doctrine: Real property may be expropriated since the State,
with the government paying (on a call basis) for all calls in the interest of national welfare, any transfer utilities to
passing through the interconnecting facilities from the public ownership upon just compensation.
Government Telephone System to the PLDT. The parties
were unable to come into an agreement. Can services be expropriated?
➔ On 12 April 1958, plaintiff Republic commenced suit Yes, as long as it is a private property with payment of just
against the defendant, Philippine Long-Distance compensation it may be expropriated.
Telephone Company, in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, praying in its complaint for judgment Does it extend to all kinds of services?
commanding the PLDT to execute a contract with Yes, as long as it is for the interest of national welfare.
plaintiff, for the use of the facilities of defendant's
telephone system throughout the Philippines under such What is the essential requisite of a contract?
terms and conditions as the court might consider The consent of both of the parties. A party cannot be coerced
reasonable to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between
them as to the principal terms and conditions of the contract.
Issue: W/N PLDT can be compelled by the Republic to enter Freedom to stipulate such terms and conditions is of the
into a contract essence of our contractual system.
Held: NO, but their services may be subject to expropriation. People vs. Fajardo
Parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no G.R. No. L-12171. August 29, 1958
agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and
conditions of the contract. Freedom to stipulate such terms Facts:
and conditions is of the essence of our contractual system,
➔ Defendant-appellant Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia
and by express provision of the statute, a contract may be
were convicted of a violation of Ordinance No. 7 of the
annulled if tainted by violence, intimidation or undue
Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, for having
influence.
constructed without a permit from the municipal mayor
a building that destroys the view of the public plaza.
But the court a quo has apparently overlooked that while the
➔ During the incumbency of defendant-appellant Juan
Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract
F. Fajardo as mayor of Camarines Sur, the municipal
with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign
council passed the ordinance in question providing as
power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to
follows:
permit interconnection of the government telephone system
and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service "SECTION 1. Any person or persons who will construct or
may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to repair a building should, before constructing or repairing,
be determined by the court. obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor.
SEC. 2. A fee of not less than P2.00 should be charged for
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in
each building permit and P1.00 for each repair permit
the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the
issued.
expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the
said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden SEC. 3. PENALTY — Any violation of the provisions of the
upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title above, this ordinance, shall make the violation liable to pay
and possession. a fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or
imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24
It is unquestionable that real property may, through days or both, at the discretion of the court. If said building
expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way. destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public
The use of the PLDT's lines and services to allow interservice property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner
connection between both telephone systems is not much of the building or house.
different. In either case private property is subjected to a
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVITY — This ordinance shall take effect on
burden for public use and benefit. If under Section 6, Article
its approval." (Orig. Recs., P. 3)
XIII, of the Constitution, the State may, in the interest of
national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon ➔ Four years later, after the term of appellant Fajardo as
payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the mayor had expired, he and his son-in-law, appellant
State may not require a public utility to render services in the Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent
general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building
Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting service adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land
18

registered in Fajardo's name, located along the In the case of People vs. Fajardo, the situation of the accused
national highway and separated from the public plaza is worse than when the ownership of his property is
by a creek but was denied. The reason among others transferred to the government. Why?
that the proposed building would destroy the view or Because he still is not relieved from paying real property taxes.
beauty of the public plaza.
➔ However, the appellants proceeded with the Republic vs. Vda. De Castellvi
construction of the building without a permit, because G.R. No. L-20620. August 15, 1974
they needed a place of residence very badly, their
former house having been destroyed by a typhoon Facts:
and hitherto they had been living on leased property. ➔ On July 1, 1947- birth of the contract and Republic
Issue: W/O the ordinance is valid? occupied Castellvi’s land. The parties entered into a
contract, the Republic of the Philippines and Castellvi. It
Held: No. A Municipal Ordinance is unreasonable and was stipulated by the parties that "the foregoing contract
oppressive if it operates to permanently deprive appellants of of lease is 'similar in terms and conditions, including the
the right to use their own property; it then oversteps the date', with the annual contracts entered into from year
bounds of police power without just compensation (Churchill to year. It is undisputed, therefore, that the Republic
and Tait vs. Rafferty) But while property may be regulated in occupied Castellvi's land from July 1, 1947, by virtue of
the interest of the general welfare and, in its pursuit, the State the contract, on a year to year basis (from July 1 of each
may prohibit structures offensive to sight, the State may not, year to June 30 of the succeeding year) under the terms
under guise of police power, permanently divest owners of and conditions therein stated.
the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate ➔ On July 11, 1956 that the heirs of the property had
them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of decided not to continue leasing the property Before the
the community. To legally achieve that result, the landowner expiration of the contract of lease on June 30, 1956 the
should be given just compensation and an opportunity to be Republic sought to renew the same but Castellvi refused.
heard. When the AFP refused to vacate the leased premises
after the termination of the contract, on July 11, 1956,
Where an ordinance of a Municipality fails to state any policy Castellvi wrote to the Chief of Staff, AFP, informing the
or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action; latter that the heirs of the property had decided not to
expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit; continue leasing the property in question because they
enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal; and entirely had decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general
lacks standards thus conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and public.
unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building ➔ On June 26, 1959, the Republic of the Philippines,
permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and (hereinafter referred to as the Republic) filed, a
unlimited delegation of power to allow or prevent an activity, complaint for eminent domain against Carmen M. vda.
per se lawful. de Castellvi over a parcel of land. The trial Court
appointed three commissioners: Atty. Yuzon, Clerk of
Doctrine: Municipal Ordinance is unreasonable and Court, as commissioner for the court; Atty. Pamandanan,
oppressive if it operates to permanently deprive persons the counsel of the Philippine National Bank Branch at
right to use their own property; it then oversteps the bounds Floridablanca, for the plaintiff; and Atty. Lansangan,
of police power without just compensation. Filipino legal counsel at Clark Air Base, for the
defendants.
In People vs. Fajardo what does it mean, that it does not ➔ The Commissioners submitted their report and
require transfer of possession of the property? recommendation, wherein, after having determined that
Because mere burden imposed on the property constitutes the lands sought to be expropriated were residential
taking in the context of eminent domain. lands, they recommended unanimously that the lowest
price that should be paid was P10.00 per square meter,
In the case of People vs. Fajardo, why is there taking even if for both the lands of Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun that an
the property remains in the ownership and possession of the additional P5,000.00 be paid to Toledo-Gozun for
accused? improvements found on her land; that legal interest on
Because the accused is already deprived of all the reasonable the compensation, computed from August 10, 1959, be
uses of the property. To prevent the owner from using his paid after deducting the amounts already paid to the
residential lot already goes beyond regulation and it already owners, and that no consequential damages be awarded.
amounts to confiscation. ➔ "In respect to the defendant Castellvi, interest at 6% per
annum will also be paid by the plaintiff to defendant
Why not police power? Castellvi from July 1, 1956 when plaintiff commenced its
Because here, the property to be taken is not harmful, it is for illegal possession of the Castellvi land when the instant
beautification. The property to be taken in police power is action had not yet been commenced to July 10, 1959
noxious or injurious. when the provisional value thereof was actually
19

deposited in court, on the total value of the said substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all
(Castellvi) land as herein adjudged. beneficial enjoyment thereof."
➔ On August 10, 1959 The Republic was actually placed in
possession of the lands on August 10, 1959 since the First, the expropriator must enter a private property. This
court issued writ of possession. circumstance is present in the instant case, when by virtue of
the lease agreement the Republic, through the AFP, took
CASTELLVI’S CONTENTION possession of the property of Castellvi.
The "taking" of property under the power of eminent domain
requires two essential elements, to wit: (1) entrance and Second, the entrance into private property must be for more
occupation by condemnor upon the private property for more than a momentary period. "Momentary" means, "lasting but a
than a momentary or limited period, and (2) devoting it to a moment; of but a moment's duration". "lasting a very short
public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him time.
of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. This appellee
argues that in the instant case the first element is wanting, for The word "momentary" when applied to possession or
the contract of lease relied upon provides for a lease from year occupancy of (real) property should be construed to mean "a
to year; that the second element is also wanting, because the limited period" — not indefinite or permanent. The aforecited
Republic was paying the lessor Castellvi a monthly rental of lease contract was for a period of one year, renewable from
P445.58; and that the contract of lease does not grant the year to year. Thus, the entry on the property, under the lease,
Republic the "right and privilege" to buy the premises "at the is temporary, and considered transitory. The fact that the
value at the time of occupancy." Republic, through the AFP, constructed some installations of
a permanent nature does not alter the fact that the entry into
REPUBLIC’S CONTENTION the land was transitory, or intended to last a year, although
The Republic alleged that the fair market value of the lands renewable from year to year by consent of the owner of the
involved, according to the Committee on Appraisal was not land.
more than P2,000 per hectare; and prayed, that the provisional
value of the lands be fixed at P259,669.10, that the court If the intention of the lessee (Republic) in 1947 was really to
authorizes the Republic to take immediate possession of the occupy Castellvi's property permanently, why was the contract
lands upon deposit of that amount with the Provincial of lease entered into on a year to year basis? Why was the
Treasurer of Pampanga The Republic argues that the "taking" lease agreement renewed from year to year? Why did not the
should be reckoned from the year 1947 when by virtue of a Republic expropriate this land of Castellvi in 1949 when,
special lease agreement between the Republic and appellee according to the Republic itself, it expropriated the other
Castellvi. The Republic was granted the "right and privilege" parcels of land that it occupied at the same time as the
to buy the property should the lessor wish to terminate the Castellvi land, for the purpose of converting them into a jet air
lease, and that in the event of such sale, it was stipulated that base?"
the fair market value should be as of the time of occupancy;
and that the permanent improvements amounting to more It might really have been the intention of the Republic to
than half a million pesos constructed during a period of expropriate the lands in question at some future time, but
twelve years on the land, subject of expropriation, were certainly mere notice — much less an implied notice — of
indicative of an agreed pattern of permanency and stability of such intention on the part of the Republic to expropriate the
occupancy by the Philippine Air Force in the interest of lands in the future did not, and could not, bind the landowner,
national security. nor bind the land itself. The expropriation must be actually
commenced in court.
Issues:
● W/O the “taking’ of the properties under expropriation Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or
commenced with the filing of action or upon possession? color of legal authority. This circumstance in the "taking" may
● W/O was there a taking? If yes, how to compute the price be considered as present in the instant case, because the
of the lot? Republic entered the Castellvi property as lessee.
● W/O the commissioner's ruling is binding?
Fourth, the property must be devoted to a public use or
Held: otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. It
may be conceded that the circumstance of the property being
TAKING” OF THE PROPERTY devoted to public use is present because the property was
"'Taking' under the power of eminent domain may be defined used by the air force of the AFP.
generally as entering upon private property for more than a
momentary period, and, under the warrant or color of legal Fifth, the utilization of the property for public use must be in
authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as beneficial enjoyment of the property.
20

In the instant case, the entry of the Republic into the property purposes of determining the just compensation to be paid
and its utilization of the same for public use did not oust must, therefore, be reckoned as of June 26, 1959 when the
Castellvi and deprive her of all beneficial enjoyment of the complaint for eminent domain was filed.
property. Castellvi remained as owner, and was continuously
recognized as owner by the Republic, as shown by the renewal Thus, the conclusions of the lower court that the lands that
of the lease contract from year to year. The Republic was are the subject of expropriation in the present case, as of
bound to pay, and had been paying Castellvi the agreed August 10, 1959 when the same were taken possession of by
monthly rentals until the time when it filed the complaint for the Republic, were residential lands and were adaptable for
eminent domain on June 26, 1959. use as residential subdivisions. Indeed, the owners of these
lands have the right to their value for the use for which they
It is clear, therefore, that the "taking" of Castellvi's property would bring the most in the market at the time the same were
for purposes of eminent domain cannot be considered to taken from them.
have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to
occupy the property as lessee thereof. PROVISIONAL VALUE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE AND
CORRECT VALUE OF THE LAND.
We find merit in the contention of Castellvi that two essential
elements in the "taking" of property under the power of The value is only "provisional" or "tentative", to serve as the
eminent domain, namely: (1) that the entrance and basis for the immediate occupancy of the property being
occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent, or expropriated by the condemner.
indefinite period, and (2) that in devoting the property to
public use the owner was ousted from the property and The report of the commissioners of appraisal in condemnation
deprived of its beneficial use, were not present when the proceedings are not binding, but merely advisory in character,
Republic entered and occupied the Castellvi property in 1947. as far as the court is concerned. In our analysis of the report
of the commissioners, we find points that merit serious
FAIR VALUE consideration in the determination of the just compensation
The "fair value" at the time of occupancy, mentioned in the that should be paid to Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun for their
lease agreement, does not refer to the value of the property if lands.
bought by the lessee, but refers to the cost of restoring the
property in the same condition as of the time when the lessee The important factor in expropriation proceedings is that the
took possession of the property. Such fair value cannot refer owner is awarded the just compensation for his property. It is
to the purchase price, for purchase was never intended by the Our considered view that the price of P5.00 per square meter
parties to the lease contract. would be a fair valuation of the lands in question and would
constitute a just compensation to the owners thereof. The
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION Republic, therefore, should pay Castellvi interest at the rate of
The "taking' of the Castellvi property should not be reckoned 6% per annum on the value of her land, minus the provisional
as of the year 1947 when the Republic first occupied the same value that was deposited, only from July 10, 1959 when it
pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the just deposited in court the provisional value of the land.
compensation to be paid for the Castellvi property should not
be determined on the basis of the value of the property as of In eminent domain proceedings, in order that evidence as to
that year. The lower court did not commit an error when it the sale price of other lands may be admitted in evidence to
held that the "taking" of the property under expropriation prove the fair market value of the land sought to be
commenced with the filing of the complaint in this case. expropriated, the lands must, among other things, be shown
to be similar.
BASIS: Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the
"just compensation" is to be determined as of the date of the Doctrine: "'Taking' under the power of eminent domain may
filing of the complaint. be defined generally as entering upon private property for
more than a momentary period, and, under the warrant or
WHAT IF THE “TAKING” OF THE PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED color of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or
COINCIDES WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it
EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDING OR TAKES PLACES in such a way as substantially to oust the owner and deprive
SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT FROM him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof."
EMINENT DOMAIN?
The just compensation should be determined as of the date

of the filing of the complaint. In the instant case, it is
undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of
the Castellvi property, by authority of the court, on August
10, 1959. The "taking" of the Castellvi property for the
21

What are the elements of taking in eminent domain? Under the rules of court, just compensation must be
➔ State must enter the property based on the value of the property at the time of the
➔ Entry must be for more than a momentary period filing of the complaint, even if the actual taking may
➔ Must be under color of authority come later. Why?
Because if the actual taking takes place first, the taking is not
➔ Property must be for public use
under the color of authority. The government is merely an
➔ Owner is deprived of all the beneficial use of the
intruder in the private property.
property
The government contends that the intention of the
What are the two kinds of taking?
government was to stay in the property indefinitely, as proof
➔ Possessory of which it has introduced permanent improvements to the
➔ Regulatory property. Did the SC agree?
No. The express provision of the contract is more controlling
What kind of taking was done? than the contemporaneous acts of the parties. Under the Parol
In this case possessory taking. Evidence Rule, the parties cannot present evidence that will
vary the terms of a written agreement.
Possessory takings mean that the government – or another
approved entity – takes over all or part of your land and you There was no absolute deprivation of all the beneficial use of
do not have the right to possess that land anymore. It is similar the property on July 1, 1947. Why?
to voluntarily selling your property – once the deed changes Because the owner still derives benefits from the property in
hands, you would be trespassing if you went onto your the form of rents.
property to use your land again. Possessory takings can
involve all of your land, which will require you to completely In the case of Republic vs. Castellvi, when did all the requisites
relocate yourself, your family, or even your business. of taking take place?
June 26, 1959
In other situations, however, only a partial possessory taking
will occur. Often, you can remain in your home or business – Under the rules of court, just compensation must be based on
you just will not be able to use that part of your land. the value of the property at the time of the filing of the
complaint, even if the actual taking may come later. Why?
A regulatory taking occurs when the locality or state passes a Because if the actual taking takes place first, the taking is not
regulation that effectively prevents you from using your land under the color of authority. The government is merely an
as you would. intruder in the private property.
What is “taking” under eminent domain? The filing of the petition for expropriation will always precede
"'Taking' under the power of eminent domain may be defined the issuance of the writ of possession.
generally as entering upon private property for more than a Yes.
momentary period, and, under the warrant or color of legal
authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally Can there be taking in the concept of eminent domain before
appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as filing of the petition for expropriation?
substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all No.
beneficial enjoyment thereof."
What was the condition of the accused versus the condition
What are the important dates? of the State?
1. July 1 ,1947 The situation of the accused is worse than when the
2. June 11, 1956 ownership of his property is transferred to the government
3. June 26, 1959 because he still is not relieved from paying real
4. August 10, 1959 property taxes.
What happened on those dates? When was there taking in the concept of eminent domain?
1. July 1,1947 – Parties entered into a contract of lease. a. The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his
2. June 11, 1956 – Heirs of the owner of the property refused property.
to renew the lease contract. b. the owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property
3. June 26, 1959 – Republic filed a complaint for expropriation. c. The owner is deprived of Jurisdiction, supervision, and
4. August 10, 1959 – Court issued the writ of possession. control of his property.
When did the taking happen?

June 26, 1959
22

Moreover, the requisites of Actual Taking are the following: In republic vs Castelvi there are several dates which are being
1. Expropriator must enter the property; considered as the date of taking July 1 1947 (when the lease
2. Entry must not be for a momentary period only; of the property for a term of one year), we have June 30 1956
3. Entry must be devoted to Public Use or otherwise (Heirs of the owner refused to renew the contract), June 26
informally appropriated or injuriously affected; 1959 (the government case for expropriation), August 10 1959
4. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to (The court issued the writ of possession in favor of the
oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment government). When were these circumstances took effect?
of the property. On July 1, 1947, the second element and fifth element were
not present. These elements were present on June 26 of 1959
What are the requisites of taking in eminent domain? when the government initiated the expropriation
(1.) The expropriator must enter a private property. proceedings.When the government disposes a property
(2.) The entrance into private property must be for more than owner from his landholding that will not be considered as a
a momentary period. "Momentary" means, "lasting but a valid exercise of expropriation. Any taking prior to the filing
moment; of but a moment's duration" of a petition for expropriation is unconstitutional.
(3.) The entry into the property should be under warrant or
color of legal authority. How should doubts be resolved whenever there are doubts in
(4.) The property must be devoted to a public use or expropriation?
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously It should be resolved against the expropriator and in favor of
affected. the property owner.
(5.) The utilization of the property for public use must be in
such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all Amigable vs. Cuenca
beneficial enjoyment of the property. G.R. No. L-26400. February 29, 1972
What about the introduction of improvement? Facts:

There was no improvement made.
➔ Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the
Government used a portion of Amigable’s lot in Banilad
Taking date of filing or payment of compensation (whichever
Estate in Cebu for the construction of Mango and
comes first). Is this applicable in this case?
Gorodo Avenues.
Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the "just
➔ It appears that the said avenues were already existing in
compensation" is to be determined as of the date of the filing
1921 although they were in bad condition as they were
the complaint.
very narrow, unlike the wide and beautiful avenues they
are now.
Rule 67 allows the expropriator to enter the
➔ Amigable’s counsel, thus, requested payment for the
property prior to writ of possession, can it mean portion appropriated to the President of the Philippines.
that it can precede actual possession? The claim was later indorsed to the Auditor General, who
Yes. disallowed it.
➔ Thus, Amigable filed a complaint against the Republic of
Can the filing of the petition precede the actual filing? the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as
Yes. Any possession before filing of petition is unlawful. Filing Commissioner of Public Highways, for the recovery of
of petition always comes first before possession. ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters of
land traversed by the avenues.
How much bond should be filed by the expropriator? ➔ However, the Republic (and Cuenca) denied the
It depends on the expropriator. The National Government allegations of Amigable on the following grounds:
under the Rules of Court 100% of the bond. If the expropriator ◆ The action was premature as it was not filed
is the LGU, the local government code will apply. first with the Office of the Auditor General.
◆ That the right of action for recovery has
The amount is based on what? already been prescribed.
The payment of just compensation is to be determined, as of ◆ That it had no valid basis, being a suit against
the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the the Government, especially since the latter did
complaint, whichever came first. In cases where a property is not give consent.
not wholly expropriated, the consequential damages to the ◆ That Amigable had no cause of action against
remaining property shall be added to the fair market value, the Government.
minus the consequential benefits, but in no case will the ➔ During the hearings, nobody appeared for the
consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages. Government. However, the Court decided that they had
no jurisdiction over the cause of action on the ground
that the Government cannot be sued without its consent.
23

➔ Unable to secure a reconsideration, the plaintiff otherwise. The Commission will respect the
appealed to the Court of Appeals, and subsequently to determination by the publisher and/or editors.
the Supreme Court. ➔ COMELEC sent identical letters to various publishers of
newspapers, which are also members of PPI.
Issue: W/N there was a valid expropriation. ➔ This Court issued a TRO enjoining COMELEC from
enforcing and implementing Section 2, Resolution 2772.
Held: No. Considering that no annotation in favor of the
government appears at the back of her certificate of title and PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
that she has not executed any deed of conveyance of any PPI asked the SC to declare COMELEC Resolution No. 2772
portion of her lot to the government, the appellant remains unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the
the owner of the whole lot. As registered owner, she could prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the
bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in government against the taking of private property for public
question at any time because possession is one of the use without just compensation. It further alleged that
attributes of ownership. requiring publishers to give free COMELEC space and at the
same time process raw data to make it camera-ready
However, since restoration of possession of said portion by constitute impositions of voluntary servitude. Finally, PPI
the government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time argues that Section 8 of COMELEC Resolution 2772 is violative
because it has been and is now being used for road purposes, of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, of the
the only relief available is for the government to make due press, and of expression.
compensation which it could and should have done years ago.
THE OSG’S REPLY
Doctrine: If the property in question could no longer be The Office of the Solicitor General led its Comment on behalf
retrieved by the registered owner, the Government has no of respondent Comelec alleging that Comelec Resolution No.
other recourse but to pay just compensation. 2772 does not impose upon the publishers any obligation to
provide free print space in the newspapers as it does not
How to determine the basis for due compensation? provide any criminal or administrative sanction for non-
The basis should be the price or value of the property at the compliance with that Resolution. According to the Solicitor
time of the taking. General, the questioned Resolution merely established
guidelines. The Solicitor General argues that even if the
questioned Resolution and its implementing letter directives
Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC
are viewed as mandatory, the same would nevertheless be
G.R. No. 119694. May 22, 1995
valid as an exercise of the police power of the State. The
Solicitor general also maintains that Section 8 of Resolution
Facts:
No. 2772 is a permissible exercise of the power of supervisor
➔ The Philippine Press Institute (PPI) assailed the or regulation of the Comelec over the communication and
constitutional validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 information operations of print media enterprises during the
➔ COMELEC Resolution 2772 election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and
◆ Section 2 - COMELEC shall procure free print credible election. COMELEC was not intended to compel those
space of not less than 1½ page in at least one members to supply Comelec with free print space. Chairman
newspaper of general circulation in every Pardo represented to the Court that that Resolution and the
province or city for use as “COMELEC space”. related letter-directives were merely designed to solicit from
In the absence of said newspaper, COMELEC the publishers the same free print space which many
space shall be obtained from any magazine or publishers had voluntarily given to Comelec during the
periodical of the said province or city. election period.
◆ Section 3 - It shall be allocated free of charge,
among all candidates within the area Issue: W/N there was lawful taking, regardless if there was no
◆ Section 4 - The allocation shall be equal and just compensation.
impartial among all candidates for the same
office. Any candidate desiring to avail himself, Held: No. To compel print media companies to donate
shall submit an application COMELEC space of the dimensions specified amounts to
◆ Section 8 - No newspaper or publication shall taking of private personal property for public use or purposes.
allow to be printed or published in the news, The assailed resolution failed to specify the intended
opinion, features, or other sections of the frequency of such compulsory donation.
newspaper or publication accounts or
comments which manifestly favor or oppose The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial.
any candidate or political party unless the This is not a case of de minimis temporary limitation or
facts and circumstances clearly indicate restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary value
of the compulsory donation, measured by the advertising
24

rates ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers whether in Sumulong vs. Guerrero
cities or non-urban areas, may be very substantial indeed. G.R. No. L-48685. September 30, 1987
The taking of private property for public use is authorized by Facts:

the Constitution, but not without payment of just
➔ On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority
compensation. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of
(NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of parcels of
private property for public use need to be examined here: one
land covering approximately twenty five (25) hectares, (in
is the necessity of the taking, another is the legal authority to
Antipolo Rizal) including the lots of petitioners Lorenzo
effect the taking. The element of necessity for the taking has
Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes- Balaoing.
not been shown by COMELEC. The unwillingness or reluctance
➔ The land sought to be expropriated was valued by the
of COMELEC to buy print space lies at the heart of the
NHA at one peso (P1.00) per square meter adopting the
problem. Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone
market value fixed by the provincial assessor.
demonstrated, that COMELEC has been granted the power of
➔ The NHA deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with the
eminent domain either by the Constitution or by legislative
Philippine National Bank, representing the "total market
authority. A reasonable relationship between tha power and
value" of the subject twenty-five hectares of land,
the enforcement must be shown and never assumed.
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1224
➔ Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the
Doctrine: The taking of private property for public use is
ground that they had been deprived of the possession of
authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment of
their property without due process of law. This was
just compensation.
however, denied.
➔ Petitioners contend that "socialized housing" as defined
How big is the print space required?
in Pres. Decree No. 1224, as amended, for the purpose of
1 ½ page at least.
condemnation proceedings is not "public use" since it
will benefit only "a handful of people, bereft of public
What are the requisites for a lawful taking of public property
character."
for public use?
➔ The necessity for the taking; and
"Socialized housing" is "the construction of dwelling units for
➔ The legal authority to effect the taking.
the middle- and lower-class members of our society,
including the construction of the supporting infrastructure
Why is it in line with the theory of democratic representative
and other facilities"
government?
The economic costs of informing the general public about the
The "public use" requirement for a valid exercise of the power
qualifications and programs of those seeking elective office
of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept
are most appropriately distributed as widely as possible
influenced by changing conditions.
throughout our society by the utilization of public funds,
especially funds raised by taxation, rather than cast solely on
one small sector of society. The benefits which flow from a Issue: Whether the taking of private property for “socialized
heightened level of information and the awareness of the housing,” which would benefit a few and not all citizens,
electoral process are commonly thought to be community- constitutes taking for “public use.
wide; the burdens should be allocated on the same basis.
Held: Yes. The exercise of the power of eminent domain is
In connection, however, to police power. Was there a lawful subject to certain limitations imposed by the constitution
taking under the police power? (1973), i.e. that private property shall not be taken for public
None. There was no showing of an existence of a national use without just compensation” (Art. IV, sec. 9); and that no
emergency or other imperious public necessity, person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
indiscriminately and without regard to the individual business due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
condition of particular newspapers or magazines located in protection of the laws” (Art. IV, sec. 1).
different parts of the country. There was no attempt made to
demonstrate that a real and palpable or urgent necessity for The term “public use” has acquired a more comprehensive
the taking of the print space. coverage. To the literal import of the term signifying strict use
or employment by the public has been added the broader
notion of indirect public benefit or advantage.
The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time
when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to
such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be
for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks.
Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not anymore.
25

As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power Does Just Compensation mean Fair Market Value of the
of eminent domain comes into play. property taken?
No. Just compensation means the value of the property at the
The Court is satisfied that "socialized housing" falls within the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the
confines of "public use". It is particularly important to draw loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property
attention to paragraph (d) of Pres. Dec. No. 1224 which should and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities,
be construed in relation with the preceding three paragraphs. should be considered.
Provisions on economic opportunities inextricably linked with
low-cost housing, or slum clearance, relocation and What are the factors to be considered in the payment of just
resettlement. compensation?
a. Potential use of the property
In the case at bar, the use to which it is proposed to put the b. Condition of the property
subject parcels of land meets the requisites of "public use". c. Improvements introduced in the Property
The lands in question are being expropriated by the NHA for d. Assessed value of the property for Tax purposes
the expansion of Bagong Nayon Housing Project to provide
housing facilities to low-salaried government employees. If the property is partially expropriated, what are the other
factors?
Moreover, the propriety of exercising the power of eminent Consequential benefits and benefits of the property
domain under Article XIII, section 4 of our Constitution cannot remaining
be determined on a purely quantitative or area basis. Not only
does the constitutional provision speak of lands instead of Formula for the determination of just compensation
landed estates, but I see no cogent reason why the JC = FMV + CD – CB
government, in its quest for social justice and peace, should
exclusively devote attention to conflicts of large proportions, ● If CB is more than CD, then JC = FMV
involving a considerable number of individuals, and eschew ● JC – Just compensation
small controversies and wait until they grow into a major ● FMV – Fair market value
problem before taking remedial action. ● CD – Consequential damages
● CB – Consequential benefits
Doctrine: The size of the property is not determinative of the

Example, the value is 1M. Damages is 500K. Benefit it 1.5M.
proper exercise of eminent domain.
How much?
1M (If CB is more than CD, then JC = FMV)
Is the area of the property sought to be expropriated relevant?
No.
What happens if the benefits are greater than the damages?
Considered only if the damages are greater than the benefits.
Does “public use” mean that it can be used by the public?
Not necessarily.
Manosca vs. CA
G.R. No. 106440. January 29, 1996
Is there a public use to socialized housing?
Yes. The use to which it is proposed to put the subject parcels
of land meets the requisites of "public use". The lands in Facts:
question are being expropriated by the NHA for the expansion ➔ Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at Taguig.
of Bagong Nayon Housing Project to provide housing ➔ The NHI ascertained that it was the birthsite of Felix Y.
facilities to low-salaried government employees. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Thus, Resolution
No. 1, Series of 1986 pursuant to Section 4 of PD No. 260,
How about the expropriation of the birth site of Felix Manalo? declaring the land to be a national historic landmark was
Yes, it is valid as held in Manosca v. CA passed.
➔ The resolution was approved by the Minister of
Payment vs. Just Compensation Education, Culture and Sports (MECS). Further, the
Payment is the performance of a duty, obligation or discharge opinion of the Secretary of Justice was asked on the
of a debt. Just compensation means the value of the property legality of the measure, to which the reply was
at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for affirmative.
the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the ➔ The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
property and its surroundings, its improvements and instituted a complaint for expropriation before the
capabilities, should be considered. Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and on behalf of the
NHI. The Republic led an urgent motion for the issuance
of an order to permit it to take immediate possession of
the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners.
26

The trial court issued an order xing the provisional members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could
market (P54,120.00) and assessed (P16,236.00) values of well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be
the property and authorizing the Republic to take over merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a
the property once the required sum would have been few would actually benet from the expropriation of property
deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig. does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of
public use.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis Doctrine: Despite that only a few would benefit from the
that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the
and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application essence and character of public use.
of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benet, or
support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the How did this case define “Eminent Domain”?
provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution The highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the
government that may be acquired for some public purpose
Issue: W/N the contention for eminent domain stands correct. through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the
State.
Held: Yes. Eminent domain, also often referred to as
expropriation and, with less frequency, is, like police power What was the ruling in Guido vs. Rural Progress
and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be Administration, and how does it connect to this case?
clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, The court, in Guido, merely passed upon the issue of the
provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more extent of the President's power under Commonwealth Act No.
to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. It 539 to, specifically, acquire private lands for subdivision into
is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most smaller home lots or farms for resale to bona de tenants or
primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty. The occupants. It was in this particular context of the statute that
only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property the Court had made the pronouncement. The guidelines in
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." Guido were not meant to be preclusive in nature and, most
This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against certainly, the power of eminent domain should not now be
possible abuse and to protect as well the individual against understood as being confined only to the expropriation of
whose property the power is sought to be enforced. vast tracts of land and landed estates.
The petitioners asserted that the expropriation has failed to What were the guidelines set in the case of Guido?
meet the guidelines set by this Court in the case of Guido v. To have a valid expropriation, the following must be followed:
Rural Progress Administration to wit: (a) the size of the land
➔ The size of the land expropriated
expropriated; (b) the large number of people benefited; and,
➔ The large number of people benefited
(c) the extent of social and economic reform. 13 Petitioners
➔ The extent of social and economic reform
suggest that we conne the concept of expropriation only to
the following public uses. However, the Supreme Court held
What is the traditional concept of “Public Use”?
that these guidelines were too limitative and restrictive.
Strictly limited to clear cases of use by the public.
The guidelines in Guido were not meant to be preclusive in
Is this concept still being used now? Why?
nature and, most certainly, the power of eminent domain
This has already been discarded. As explained in the case of
should not now be understood as being conned only to the
Sena vs. Manila Railroad Co., historical research discloses the
expropriation of vast tracts of land and landed estates. The
meaning of the term 'public use' to be one of constant growth.
term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the
As society advances, its demands upon the individual increase
constitution, must be considered in its general concept of
and each demand is a new use to which the resources of the
meeting a public need or a public exigency. The idea that
individual may be devoted for “whatever is beneficially
"public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the
employed for the community is a public use”
public" has long been discarded.
What did Chief Justice Fernando say about “Public Use”?

Why would the expropriation of Felix Manalo's birthplace
The taking to be valid must be for public use. Whatever
become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the
project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the
exercise of the power of eminent domain when only members
case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not
of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit?
allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the
The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to
taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes
recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo
into play.
to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate
his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The
What did Father Bernas say about “Public Use”?
practical reality that greater benet may be derived by
Public use is just as broad as public welfare.
27

What is a “national historical landmark”? Yes, considering that the owner of property expropriated is
Places or objects that are associated with an event, entitled to recover from expropriating authority the fair and
achievement, characteristic, or modification that makes a full value of the lot, as of the time when possession thereof
turning point or stage in Philippine history. was actually taken by the province, plus consequential
damages — including attorney's fees — from which the
EPZA vs. Dulay consequential benefits, if any should be deducted, with
G.R. No. L-59603. April 29, 1987 interest at the legal rate, on the aggregate sum due to the
owner from and after the date of actual taking. In fine, the
Facts: decree only establishes a uniform basis for determining just
compensation which the Court may consider as one of the
➔ On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines,
factors in arriving at 'just compensation,' as envisaged in the
issued Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain parcel
Constitution.
of land of the public domain situated in the City of Lapu-
Lapu, Island of Mactan, Cebu for the establishment of an
The valuation in the decree may only serve as a guiding
export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing
principle or one of the factors in determining just
Zone Authority (EPZA).
compensation but it may not substitute the court's own
➔ Not all the reserved area, however, was public land. The
judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to
proclamation included, among others, four (4) parcels of
arrive at such amount.
land owned and registered in the name of the private
respondent. The petitioner, therefore, offered to
Just compensation means the value of the property at the
purchase the parcels of land from the respondent in
time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the
accordance with the valuation set forth in Section 92,
loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464, as amended. The
and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities,
parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the sale
should be considered. Various factors can come into play in
of the property.
the valuation of specific properties singled out for
expropriation. Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be
Issue: W/N PD Nos. 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed and
absolute substitutes for just compensation.
superseded Sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of
Court, such that in determining the just compensation of
It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the
property in an expropriation case, the only basis should be its
opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents
market value as declared by the owner or as determined by
is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic concepts of
the assessor, whichever is lower; W/N they are valid and
justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor
constitutional
bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of
a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have
Held: NO. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the
pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and
aforequoted decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment
considerations essential to a fair and just determination have
on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in
been judiciously evaluated.
a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final
determination.
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain
cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court
legislature may make the initial determinations but when a
technically would still have the power to determine the just
party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights
compensation for the property, following the applicable
that private property may not be taken for public use without
decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the
just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can
lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or
mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the
the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be useless
court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from
for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the
looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.
Rules of Court. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for
the judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just
Doctrine: Private property may not be taken for public use
compensation is concerned.
without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive
In the present petition, we are once again confronted with the order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail
same question of whether the courts under P.D. 1533, which over the court's findings.
contains the same provision on just compensation as its
predecessor decrees, still have the power and authority to
determine just compensation, independent of what is stated
by the decree and to this effect, to appoint commissioners for
such purpose.
28

Municipality of Paranaque vs. VM Realty Corp. (3) There is payment of just compensation, as required
G.R. No. 127820. July 20, 1998 under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other
pertinent laws.
Facts: (4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to
the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but
➔ Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95,
said offer was not accepted.
Series of 1993, the Municipality of Parañaque filed a
Complaint for expropriation against Private Respondent
In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise
V.M. Realty Corporation, over two parcels of land,
the power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the
located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila.
municipal council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first
Allegedly, the complaint was filed "for the purpose of
requisite that the mayor be authorized through an ordinance.
alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged
by providing homes for the homeless through a
We are not convinced by the petitioner's insistence that the
socialized housing project."
terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are synonymous. A
➔ Private respondent filed its Answer, alleging in the main
municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An
that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action
ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of
because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to
the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific
an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local
matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent
Government Code); and (b) the cause of action, if any,
character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.
was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata.
Additionally, the two are enacted differently — a third reading
is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless
Issue:
decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian
● W/N a resolution duly approved by the municipal council
members.
has the same force and effect of an ordinance and will
not deprive an expropriation case of a valid cause of
Eminent Domain Not Barred by Res Judicata
action;
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals and the trial court,
● The principle of res judicata as a ground for dismissal of
all the requisites for the application of res judicata are present
case is not applicable when public interest is primarily
in this case. There is a previous final judgment on the merits
involved.
in a prior expropriation case involving identical interests,
subject matter and cause of action, which has been rendered
Held
by a court having jurisdiction over it.
● NO, A resolution is different from an ordinance, which is
required by the LGC.
Be that as it may, the Court holds that the principle of res
● The exercise of the power of Eminent Domain cannot be
judicata, which finds application in generally all cases and
barred by res judicata.
proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to
expropriate private property. The very nature of eminent
RESOLUTION DIFFERENT FROM AN ORDINANCE
domain, as an inherent power of the State, dictates that the
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative
right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even
branch of government, which may delegate the exercise
by a prior judgment or res judicata.
thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public utilities. An
LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private
While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right
property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the
of the State to exercise eminent domain, it does apply to
latter's control and restraints imposed "through the law
specific issues decided in a previous case. For example, a final
conferring the power or in other legislations." In this case,
judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that
Section 19 of RA 7160, which delegates to LGUs the power of
there was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the
eminent domain, also lays down the parameters for its
same issue; it cannot, however, bar the State or its agent from
exercise.
thereafter complying with this requirement, as prescribed by
law, and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain
Thus, the following essential requisites must concur before an
over the same property. By the same token, our ruling that
LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:
petitioner cannot exercise its delegated power of eminent
(1) An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
domain through a mere resolution will not bar it from
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the
reinstituting similar proceedings, once the said legal
LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
requirement and, for that matter, all others are properly
expropriation proceedings over a particular private
complied with. Parenthetically and by parity of reasoning, the
property.
same is also true of the principle of "law of the case."
(2) The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,
purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
29

Doctrine: A municipality may exercise the power of eminent Held: Yes. The Republic disregarded the foregoing provision
domain pursuant only to an ordinance and not a mere when it failed and refused to pay respondent's predecessors-
resolution. in-interest the just compensation for Lots 932 and 939.
The final judgment in the expropriation proceedings (Civil

Republic vs. Lim
Case No. 781) was entered on April 5, 1948. More than half of
G.R. No. 161656. June 29, 2005
a century has passed, yet, to this day, the landowner, now
respondent, has remained empty-handed. Undoubtedly, over
Facts:
50 years of delayed payment cannot, in any way, be viewed as
➔ In the present case fifty-seven (57) years have lapsed fair.
from the time the Decision in the subject expropriation
proceedings became final, but still the Republic of the The Court of Appeals is correct in saying that Republic's delay
Philippines, herein petitioner, has not compensated the is contrary to the rules of fair play, as "just compensation
owner of the property. To tolerate such prolonged embraces not only the correct determination of the amount
inaction on its part is to encourage distrust and to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment for
resentment among our people — the very vices that the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without
corrode the ties of civility and tempt men to act in ways prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just.'"
they would otherwise shun In jurisdictions similar to ours, where an entry to the
➔ On September 5, 1938, the Republic of the Philippines expropriated property precedes the payment of
(Republic) instituted a special civil action for compensation, it has been held that if the compensation is not
expropriation involving lots 932 and 939 of the Banilad paid in a reasonable time, the party may be treated as a
Friar Land Estate, Lahug, Cebu City, for the purpose of trespasser ab initio.
establishing a military reservation for the Philippine How could the Republic acquire ownership over Lot 932 when
Army. Lot 932 was registered in the name of Gervasia it has not paid its owner the just compensation, required by
Denzon, while Lot 939 was in the name of Eulalia Denzon. law, for more than 50 years? The recognized rule is that title
After depositing P9,500.00 with the Philippine National to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the
Bank, on October 19, 1938, the Republic took possession expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation.
of the lots. Without full payment of just compensation, there can be no
➔ On May 14, 1940, the CFI rendered its Decision ordering transfer of title from the landowner to the expropriator.
the Republic to pay the Denzons the sum of P4,062.10 as Otherwise stated, the Republic's acquisition of ownership is
just compensation. conditioned upon the full payment of just compensation
➔ On September 20, 1961 the Denzons' successors-in- within a reasonable time.
interest filed with CFI against the Republic an action for
recovery of possession with damages for failure to pay The expropriation of lands consists of two stages in
the lot possessed. The CFI ruled in favor of them and the Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia
CA affirmed the decision. Nothing has found in the
The first is concerned with the determination of the authority
records to show that the Republic paid the owners or
of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and
their successors-in-interest.
the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved
➔ Said lots have been the subject of expropriation
in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the
proceedings. By final and executory judgment in said action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a
proceedings, they were condemned for public use, as lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for
part of an airport, and ordered sold to the Government. the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon
In fact, the abovementioned title certificates secured by the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the
plaintiffs over said lots contained annotations of the date of the filing of the complaint"
right of the National Airports Corporation (now CAA) to
pay for and acquire them. It follows that both by virtue The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned
of the judgment, long final, in the expropriation suit, as with the determination by the court of "the just compensation
well as the annotations upon their title certificates, for the property sought to be taken."
plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of their
expropriated lots — which are still devoted to the public This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than
use for which they were expropriated — but only to three (3) commissioners.
demand the fair market value of the same."
It is only upon the completion of these two stages that
expropriation is said to have been completed. Thus, here, the
Issue: W/O the successors-in-interest are entitled to the
failure of the Republic to pay respondent and his
payment of the land or can they reacquire the land if possible?
predecessors-in-interest for a period of 57 years rendered the
expropriation process incomplete.
30

The Republic now argues that under Valdehueza, respondent payment of the property within a reasonable time. Without
is not entitled to recover possession of Lot 932 but only to prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just."
demand payment of its fair market value. Of course, we are
aware of the doctrine that "non-payment of just Doctrine: Just compensation as not only the correct
compensation (in an expropriation proceedings) does not determination of the amount to be paid to the property owner
entitle the private landowners to recover possession of the but also the payment of the property within a reasonable time.
expropriated lots." Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just."
The Republic was ordered to pay just compensation twice, the
first was in the expropriation proceedings and the second, in POWER OF TAXATION
Valdehueza. Fifty-seven (57) years have passed since then. We
cannot but construe the Republic's failure to pay just
Sison vs. Ancheta
compensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. Under such
G.R. No. L-59431. July 25, 1984
circumstance, recovery of possession is in order. In several
jurisdictions, the courts held that recovery of possession may
Facts:
be had when property has been wrongfully taken or is
wrongfully retained by one claiming to act under the power ➔ Batas Pambansa 135 was enacted. Sison, as taxpayer,
of eminent domain or where a rightful entry is made and the alleged that its provision (Section 1) unduly
party condemning refuses to pay the compensation which has discriminated against him by the imposition of higher
been assessed or agreed upon; or fails or refuses to have the rates upon his income as a professional, that it amounts
compensation assessed and paid. to class legislation, and that it transgresses against the
equal protection and due process clauses of the
The Republic also contends that where there have been Constitution as well as the rule requiring uniformity in
constructions being used by the military, as in this case, public taxation.
interest demands that the present suit should not be ➔ The assailed provision further amends Section 21 of the
sustained. This Court, as the guardian of the people's right, National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which provides
will not stand still in the face of the Republic's oppressive and for rates of tax on citizens or residents on (a) taxable
confiscatory taking of private property, as in this case. compensation income, (b) taxable net income, (c)
royalties, prizes, and other winnings, (d) interest from
In such a case, even if respondent's title was registered first, it bank deposits and yield or any other monetary benefit
would be the Republic's title or right of ownership that shall from deposit substitutes and from trust fund and similar
be upheld. But now, assuming that respondent was in bad arrangements, (e) dividends and share of individual
faith can such fact vest upon the Republic a better title over partner in the net profits of taxable partnership, (f)
Lot 932? We believe not. This is because in the first place, the adjusted gross income. As taxpayer alleges that by virtue
Republic has no title to speak of. thereof, "he would be unduly discriminated against by
the imposition of higher rates of tax upon his income
In summation, while the prevailing doctrine is that "the non- arising from the exercise of his profession vis-a-vis those
payment of just compensation does not entitle the private which are imposed upon fixed income or salaried
landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, individual taxpayers."
however, in cases where the government failed to pay just ➔ He characterizes the above section as arbitrary
compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners in character.
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their
property. Issue: Whether BP 135 violates the due process and equal
protection clauses, and the rule on uniformity in taxation.
This is in consonance with the principle that "the government
cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment." To be Held: The power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be
sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the availed of to assure the performance of vital state functions. It
government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in is the source of the bulk of public funds. To paraphrase a
keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the recent decision, taxes being the lifeblood of the government,
government, whenever it takes property from private persons their prompt and certain availability is of the essence.
against their will, to facilitate the payment of just
compensation. Power to tax is not without restrictions. The power to tax, to
borrow from Justice Malcolm, "is an attribute of sovereignty.
In Cosculluela v. Court of Appeals, we defined just It is the strongest of all the powers of government." The only
compensation as not only the correct determination of the limits that set forth by the constitution is when there is
amount to be paid to the property owner but also the adversely affecting property rights, both the due process and
equal protection clauses may properly be invoked, as
31

petitioner does, to invalidate in appropriate cases a revenue gross system of income taxation to compensation income,
measure. while continuing the system of net income taxation as regards
professional and business income.
If it were otherwise, there would be truth to the 1803 dictum
of Chief Justice Marshall that "the power to tax involves the Doctrine: The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
power to destroy." The power to tax by the State is an inherent prerogative it has
to be availed of to assure the performance of vital state
SECTION 1 BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 135 is not a transgression functions. It is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the strongest
of the due process in the absence of a showing of of all the powers of government.
arbitrariness.
Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works
Petitioner alleges arbitrariness. A mere allegation does not
G.R. No. L-10405. December 29, 1960
suffice. There must be a factual foundation of such
unconstitutional taint. Considering that petitioner would
Facts:
condemn the provision as void on its face, he has not made
out a case. This is merely to adhere to the authoritative ➔ Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal,
doctrine that where the due process and equal protection assailed the constitutionality of RA 920, an act
clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules appropriating funds for public works in the amount of
but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such P85,000.00, for the construction, reconstruction, repair,
persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. extension, and improvement of Pasig feeder road
Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must terminals.
prevail. ➔ At the time of the passage and approval, the feeder
roads were nothing but projected and planned
Inequality resulting from the classification made, not a subdivision roads within the Antonio Subdivision, which
transgression of the equal protection clause and the rule on was owned by Senator Jose C. Zulueta.
uniformity ➔ Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of
Pasig, offering to donate the projected feeder roads to
Classification, if rational in character, is allowable. In Lutz v. the municipality in exchange of changing the names of
Araneta, the Court went so far as to hold "at any rate, it is the two of them. Zulueta further wrote that P85,000.00
inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the was appropriated for the construction of the projected
subject of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that feeder roads.
'inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular
class for taxation, or exemption infringe no constitutional PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
limitation.' " Petitioner likewise invoked the kindred concept Petitioner prayed that the contested item of RA 920 be
of uniformity. According to the Constitution: "The rule of declared null and void, that the alleged deed of donation of
taxation shall be uniform and equitable." When the tax the feeder roads be declared unconstitutional and, therefore,
"operates with the same force and effect in every place where illegal.
the subject may be found. The rule of uniformity does not call
for perfect uniformity or perfect equality, because this is RESPONDENT’S REPLY
hardly attainable." Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that petitioner had no legal capacity to sue, and that the
Justification on the adoption of the gross system on income petition did not state any cause of action. Further, the
taxation to compensation income. respondents also averred that there was no actual bona fide
In the case of the gross income taxation embodied in Batas case in which the validity of RA 920 is necessarily involved as
Pambansa Blg. 135, the discernible basis of classification is the petitioner has not shown that he has a personal and
susceptibility of the income to the application of generalized substantial interest in the said act as its enforcement did not
rules removing all deductible items for all taxpayers within the cause or it will not cause him direct injury.
class and fixing a set of reduced tax rates to be applied to all
of them. Taxpayers who are recipients of compensation Issue: W/N incidental gains by the public be considered
income are set apart as a class. "public purpose" for the purpose of justifying an expenditure
of the government?
On the other hand, in the case of professionals in the practice
of their calling and businessmen, there is no uniformity in the Held: No. The legislature is without power to appropriate
costs or expenses necessary to produce their income. It would public revenue for anything but a public purpose. Incidental
not be just then to disregard the disparities by giving all of advantage to the public or to the State, which results from the
them zero deduction and indiscriminately impose on all alike promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private
the same tax rates on the basis of gross income. There is enterprise or business, does not justify their aid by use of
ample justification for the Batasang Pambansa to adopt the public money.
32

Taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only. Held: No. It is not for the courts to judge what particular cities
Public funds may be used for a public purpose. The right of or municipalities should be empowered to impose
the legislature is correlative with its right to tax, under occupational taxes in addition to those imposed by the
constitutional provisions against taxation except for public national Government since that matter is within the domain
purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one of the political departments and the courts would not do well
purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no to encroach upon it.
appropriation of State funds can be made for other than a
public purpose. The argument against double taxation may not be invoked
where one tax is imposed by the State and the other by the
Thus, Zulueta cannot use his public position for his private City. There is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement
interests. The projected feeder roads were to be constructed that license fees or taxes be extracted with respect to the same
on the subdivision, which was owned by then Senator Zulueta. occupation, calling, or activity by both the State and the
The result of the appropriation is sought for his sole private political subdivisions thereof.
purpose, and, hence, was null and void.
DISSENTING OPINION: CHIEF JUSTICE PARAS
DOES A MERE TAXPAYER HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO ASSAIL If it be argued that the national occupation tax is collected to
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE? allow the professional residing in Manila to pursue his calling
Yes. Taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal in other places in the Philippines, it should then be exacted
expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore only from professionals practising simultaneously in and
question the constitutionality of statutes requiring outside of Manila. This obvious discrimination or lack of
expenditure of public money. uniformity cannot be brushed aside or justified by any trite
pronouncement that double taxation is legitimate or that
Doctrine: It is illegal to appropriate public funds for a private legislation may validly affect certain classes. My position is
purpose. No appropriation of State funds can be made for that a professional who has paid the occupation tax under the
other than a public purpose. National Internal Revenue Code should be allowed to practice
in Manila even without paying the similar tax imposed by
What is the test of constitutionality? Ordinance No. 3398
W/N the statute is designed to promote the public interests,
as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, Doctrine: Cities are allowed to tax their citizens, regardless of
although such advantage might incidentally serve the public. a specified State tax already imposed.
What are the places affected by the feeder road terminals? What is double taxation?
General Roxas -> General Araneta -> General Lucban -> It is where one tax is imposed by the State and the other by
General Capinpin -> General Segundo -> General Delgado - the City.
> General Malvar -> General Lim (in that order). This is within
the Antonio Subdivision situated at Pasig, Rizal.
Lladoc vs. CIR
G.R. No. L-19201. June 16, 1965
Punsalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila
G.R. No. L-4817. May 26, 1954
Facts:
➔ MB Estate Inc. of Bacolod City donated P10,000.00 in
Facts:
cash for the construction of a new Catholic Church. This
➔ Certain professionals assailed the validity and donation was given to Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz, then parish
constitutionality of Ordinance No. 3398 of the City of priest and predecessor of herein petitioner, Rev. Fr.
Manila which imposes a municipal occupation tax on Casimiro Lladoc.
persons exercising various professions in the city and
➔ MB Estate filed the donor’s gift tax return.
penalizes non payment by a fine not more than P200.00
➔ CIR, then, issued an assessment for Donee's gift tax
and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
against the Catholic Parish of Victorias.
➔ The Ordinance was enacted pursuant to the revised
➔ The tax amounted to P1,370.00.
Charter of the City of Manila, which empowers the
Municipal Board of the said city to impose a municipal
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
occupation tax.
The petitioner lodged a protest to the assessment and
➔ Herein petitioners paid their taxes first (both State and
requested the withdrawal thereof. The protest and the motion
city taxes) before they filed this complaint.
for reconsideration presented to the CIR were denied. The
petitioner appealed to the CIR. In the petition, Lladoc claimed
Issue: W/N the tax imposed by the City of Manila is
that at the time of the donation, he was not the parish priest,
discriminatory.
that there is no legal entity or juridical person known as the
33

“Catholic Parish Priest of Victorias”, and that the assessment Issue: W/N the lot and building in question are subject to
of the gift tax against the Roman Catholic Church would not realty tax
be valid as it is a clear violation of the Constitution, therefore,
he should not be liable for the donee’s gift tax. Held: YES. Due to its time frame, the constitutional provision
which finds application in the case at bar is Section 22,
Issue: W/N Lladoc’s contention was correct. paragraph 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine
Constitution, which expressly grants exemption from realty
Held: No. Section 22(3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the taxes for "Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents
Philippines, exempts from taxation cemeteries, churches and appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and
personages or convents, appurtenant thereto, and all lands, improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or
buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious educational purposes . . . ."
purposes. The exemption is only from the payment of taxes
assessed on such properties enumerated, as property taxes, as While this Court allows a more liberal and non-restrictive
contra-distinguished from excise taxes. In the present case, interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used for educational
what the Collector assessed was a donee's gift tax. purposes" as provided for in Article VI, Section 22, paragraph
3 of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, reasonable emphasis
Gift tax is not within the exempting provisions of the section has always been made that exemption extends to facilities
just mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter accomplishment of the main purposes. Otherwise stated, the
vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is
religious purposes, do not constitute an impairment of the neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. Thus,
Constitution. while the use of the second floor of the main building in the
case at bar for residential purposes of the Director and his
"Exempt from taxation," as employed in the Constitution family, may find justification under the concept of incidental
should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds use, which is complementary to the main or primary purpose
of taxes. And there being no clear, positive or express grant of — educational, the lease of the first floor thereof to the
such privilege by law, in favor of the petitioner, the exemption Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the
herein must be denied. imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of
education.
On the issue of who should be called upon to pay the gift tax?
The assessment was properly made and the imposition of the It will be noted however that the aforementioned lease
tax is not a violation of the constitutional provision exempting appears to have been raised for the first time in this Court.
churches, personages, or convents. Thus, the Head of the That the matter was not taken up in the trial court is really
Diocese is liable for the payment of the gift tax. apparent in the decision of the respondent Judge. No mention
thereof was made in the stipulation of facts
Doctrine: Exemptions from the payment of tax is highly
disfavored by law. The party claiming exemption must justify The school building as well as the lot where it is built, should
his claim by a clear, positive, or express grant of such privilege be taxed, not because the second floor of the same is being
by law. used by the Director and his family for residential purposes,
but because the first floor thereof is being used for
What is a gift tax? commercial purposes. However, since only a portion is used
An excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of for purposes of commerce, it is only fair that half of the
gift inter vivos. assessed tax be returned to the school involved.
Abra Valley College vs. Aquino Doctrine: Exemption from Realty Taxes of properties
G.R. No. L-39086. June 15, 1988 "exclusively used for educational purposes" extends to
facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the main purposes.
Facts: Petitioner Abra Valley Junior College, Inc., an
educational corporation and institution of higher learning
duly incorporated with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in 1948, filed a complaint to annul and declare
void the "Notice of Seizure" and the "Notice of Sale" of its lot
and building located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of
real estate taxes and penalties. The above properties of the
Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. was sold at public auction for
the satisfaction of the unpaid real property taxes.
34


Inherent Powers of The State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inherent Powers of The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

What are the inherent powers of the State?

What is the just compensation in police power, eminent

Inherent powers are limitations of the Bill of Rights. Why?

EMINENT POWER OF What are the different components of Police Power?

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The police power of the state has been described as "the

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The police power being the most active power of the

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

police power (as placed on the property for

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Held: YES. The city of Manila is given authority to expropriate

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The just compensation should be determined as of the date

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

When did the taking happen?

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

What about the introduction of improvement? Facts:

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The taking of private property for public use is authorized by Facts:

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Doctrine: The size of the property is not determinative of the

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

What did Chief Justice Fernando say about “Public Use”?

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

The final judgment in the expropriation proceedings (Civil

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

POLI RECIT Qs / FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

You might also like